Question About Mary ??

[justasking4]

The Church wrote, canonized, preserved, protected and preached the New Testament.

The Catholic Church, that is.

It was not the Roman catholic church that wrote the NT. It did not exist then. Again, God used the church at the time to discover the canon. The source of the canon (God) is what gives its authority and power and not a church.

 

[jmcrae]

It was not the Roman catholic church that wrote the NT. It did not exist then.

Which Church was it, then. (Remember, in order for Christ’s promises to be true, it must be a Church that has existed continuously since then, and still exists as a world-wide organization today, without any gaps where it “went underground,” or stopped existing for a period of time.)

Again, God used the church at the time to discover the canon. The source of the canon (God) is what gives its authority and power and not a church.

And how did God use that Church? (What was the procedure that was followed by that Church?)

 

[justasking4]

Yes the Church did. 1 Tim 3:15, the Pillar and Bulwark of Truth is the house of God, the Church.

Are you saying that the church made the Scriptures inspired-inerrant?

The Scripture was orally given to Moses, and by the time of Jesus Christ, there were scrolls scattered in Judea. Some of the books were written in Hebrew and another written in Greek in Septuagint written by Helenistic Jews. There was no close canon of Scripture at time.

By the start of Christianity, the Gospel was preached orally. In those days there were Pharisees, Sadducees, Herodians. The Sadducees were like the Sola Scriptura of their time because they deny the Resurrection and such. As the years pass and more Gentile converted into Christianity, the Scripture which was only the OT were used in the liturgical worship.

After the destruction of the Temple, the Jews gather in Jamnia and condemned Christianity, denied Jesus is the Messiah, nullified the Septuagint. Yet the Christian Church continue to use it.

By the Third Century, Pope Damascus issued an order to St. Jerome who translated Bible into Latin. They also added 27 NT books, the 4 Gospels and the Epistles, Revelations. In the Local Council, Council of Carthage a list of Canon of Scripture was listed to included all 73 Biblical Books. This list was again used in the Council of Hippo, then in the Ecunemical Council in Florence where representatives from the Eastern Orthodox and the Catholic Church agreed one set of Biblical Canon in 1431, 100 yrs before the Reformation.

It was not until the Reformation that 7 Deutrocanonical Books were put into the appendix in the Protestant Bible. Luther doubted some Epistles like Letter of James, Revelations, Jude, and others were not inspired. I believe 50 yrs later, the Protestant remove the 7 Deutrocanonical Books.

The Catholic Bible has 46 OT and 27 NT, 73 Books altogether.

While the Protestant Bible only have 39 OT, and 27 OT, 66 Books altogether.

 

[justasking4]

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

It really doesn’t. My point is that we have no physical evidence for all kinds of people in the NT and would it be reasonable to conclude they were all taken to heaven?

 

[justasking4]

Which Church was it, then.

Not the roman catholic church. For the church of the NT to be Roman catholic, it would have to have a pope, unmarried leadership, indulgences, marian dogmas to name a few things that are distinctly roman catholic. These things are absent in the NT church.

(Remember, in order for Christ’s promises to be true, it must

The best way to answer that is to compare what the church looked like in the NT with churches today. What you don’t see in the NT church are many of the doctrines and practices of the roman church.

 

[jmcrae]

It really doesn’t. My point is that we have no physical evidence for all kinds of people in the NT and would it be reasonable to conclude they were all taken to heaven?

Are you just assuming we don’t, or do you know this for a fact? I see the opposite - there are shrines everywhere, and relics (bone fragments, etc.) of just about anybody you can think of - there is all kinds of evidence of the people in the New Testament, at least.

 

[believers]

Water baptism is the only kind of baptism there is - and Christ commands that we be baptized.

Eating the real flesh of Jesus is the only way to eat the real flesh of Jesus. All of your word games are nothing at all.

Religion and the Sacraments are the method we use to turn to Christ and repent of our sins. A person cannot merely imagine that he has done so, and then think that, because he imagined doing it, that he actually did it.

Religion and sacraments are man-made. They are designed to keep a person carnal. It is impossible to please God without faith. Faith must come from the Word of God.

 

[jmcrae]

Not the roman catholic church. For the church of the NT to be Roman catholic, it would have to have a pope, unmarried leadership, indulgences, marian dogmas to name a few things that are distinctly roman catholic. These things are absent in the NT church.

Not at all. The archaeological evidence points to the Roman Catholic Church being in the Catacombs during the first century AD. And reading the writings of the Early Fathers, we realize that they were Catholic through and through - uncomfortably so, at times.

The best way to answer that is to compare what the church looked like in the NT with churches today. What you don’t see in the NT church are many of the doctrines and practices of the roman church.

 

[justasking4]

Are you just assuming

we don’t, or do you know this for a fact?I see the opposite - there are shrines everywhere, and relics (bone fragments, etc.) of just about anybody you can think of - there is all kinds of evidence of the people in the New Testament, at least.

Just because there are bones and a shrine doesn’t mean its that person’ bones the church claims. It could easily be a forgery. Also there is no way to know with certainty whose bones they are anyway. If i’m not mistaken, i thought i had read somewhere that there is a lot of fraud in this area. Its not like you have names on these bones that tells you specifically who they are.

 

[jmcrae]

Religion and sacraments are man-made.

The Man who made them was Jesus Christ.

They are designed to keep a person carnal.

No, they are designed to connect our humanity with Christ’s humanity and divinity.

It is impossible to please God without faith. Faith must come from the Word of God.

This, I agree with. The Word of God commands the people of faith to become members of Christ’s Church, and to use the Sacraments.

If the Sacraments are used without faith, then they don’t do anything, since they aren’t magical. But just because they are useless to people who have no faith, doesn’t mean that the Sacraments aren’t necessary to people of faith. They are.

 

[Mommyof02green]

It must be taken literally. God cannot lie. If God said “all have sinned” then all have sinned. God is not the author of confusion 1Cr 14:33

What sins does a 5 day old infant commit?

 

[elvisman]

It must be taken literally. God cannot lie. If God said “all have sinned” then all have sinned. God is not the author of confusion 1Cr 14:33

Believers -
**You are ABSOLUTELY right. Gos is NOT the author of confusion - ****PROTESTANTISM is. **
How can a baby or a mentally retarded person sin?
I can show you 10 Protestants in my family who believe otherwise.

 

[justasking4]

Not at all. The archaeological evidence points to the Roman Catholic Church being in the Catacombs

during the first century AD. And reading the writings of the Early Fathers, we realize that they were Catholic through and through - uncomfortably so, at times.
There was a church in Rome in the 1st century. Paul’s letter to the Romans would most likely be that church. However, when you read his letter to the Romans, you do not find him teaching those doctrines that make the roman catholic church what it is. He makes no reference to these doctrines and practices.

If you just open your eyes and look, yes you do

What does this have to do with the roman catholic church?

 

[elvisman]

There was a church in Rome in the 1st century. Paul’s letter to the Romans would most likely be that church. However, when you read his letter to the Romans, you do not find him teaching those doctrines that make the roman catholic church what it is. He makes no reference to these doctrines and practices.

**The problem with you **and many other Protestants is that you think the Church is to remain EXACTLY the same as it looked in Scripture. NOTHING that grows can remain the same. It grows into maturity.
The Church is a living, growing entity – JUST as Judaism was. Just as mankind is – more importantly – JUST as JESUS was as he grew up.
Jesus didn’t come does to earth as a man preaching along the countryside. He was born and grew up – as we ALL do.
WHY is it that you can’t accept and realize that the Church must ALSO grow?

 

[elvisman]

Just because there are bones and a shrine doesn’t mean its that person’ bones the church claims. It could easily be a forgery. Also there is no way to know with certainty whose bones they are anyway. If i’m not mistaken, i thought i had read somewhere that there is a lot of fraud in this area. Its not like you have names on these bones that tells you specifically who they are.

Wow – what a lack of faith. Thank GOD the early Church didn’t think the way you do. The very same could be said about the Resurrection.

“Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed.” (John 20:30)

 

[jmcrae]

There was a church in Rome in the 1st century. Paul’s letter to the Romans would most likely be that church. However, when you read his letter to the Romans, you do not find him teaching those doctrines that make the roman catholic church what it is. He makes no reference to these doctrines and practices.

Maybe you have some kind of misunderstanding about what the Roman Catholic Church teaches, or what it actually is. St. Paul is certainly teaching Catholic doctrine, not only in his letter to the Romans, but also in all of his other letters, as well.

Rome became the central headquarters of the Church after the time of the letter that Paul wrote to the Romans, though. At that particular time, it was still in Jerusalem.

It moved when St. Peter, our Pope, was taken captive to Rome. It simply remained there because of convenience - by the time it became possible to move back to Jerusalem, there was no longer any desire to do so, and it was just easier to stay in Rome. There is nothing particularly special about Rome itself, though, and St. Paul had no idea that the Church headquarters would ever move to Rome - I’m sure he thought they would stay in Jerusalem forever.

What does this have to do with the roman catholic church?

I was just referring to the fact that the same type of miracles that are occurring today in the Roman Catholic Church, especially at sites like Mejagoria, are also recorded in the Book of Acts.

Same miracles, same Church.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

**I was just referring to the fact that the same type of miracles that are occurring today in the Roman Catholic Church, especially at sites like Mejagoria, are also recorded in the Book of Acts. **

Not only that, but also the scientifically-verified miracles at Lourdes, France. One case there involves a blind woman blind because her optic nerve was destroyed. But after being blessed with the blessed sacrament, her sight was fully restored. And what is appalling is that her optic nerve remains utterly destroyed.
This is medically, biologically, and scientifically impossible.
It is a true miracle.

Not only that, a large number of miracles were worked through people being prayed over by the late pope, Pope John Paul II.
He was very modest and never, ever spoke of them.
But those who RECEIVED the miraculous healings ARE speaking out and VERY LOUDLY. They have begun telling their verified accounts.
Some of these accounts can be found in a book called
MIRACLES OF JOHN PAUL II. Just do a google search or rather go to amazon.com choose books under the drop-down categories, and type in the name of this book. Order a copy.
You will be amazed, and all these people are living and some were near death when John Paul laid his hands on them, prayed over them, and the healing occured instantly.

John Paul the Second never bragged about this.
But the people who received the healings are flooding the Holy See with testimonies.

God bless you,
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+

 

[LJN21]

There are a number of tests the church used to determine this along with determing the canon.

Okay what are they and who came up with them?

 

[Pixie_Dust]

If you believe water baptism washes away your sin then you are truly deceived.

If you think baptism doesn’t wash away sins you must have a lot of holes in your Bible from cutting verses out.

Matt 28:20 - Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

Acts 2:38 - But Peter said to them: Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins: and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Acts 22:16 - And now why tarriest thou? Rise up, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, invoking his name.

1 Cor. 6:11 - And such some of you were; but you are washed, but you are sanctified, but you are justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Spirit of our God.

Titus 3:5-7 - Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; 6Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; 7That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

1 Peter 3:21 - The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

And, you need to start eating the real flesh of Jesus and turn to Him in faith and REPENT.

I am longing for the day when I can eat the Real Body and Blood of Jesus in the Eucharist. I’m still in transition at the moment. Meanwhile, I do turn to Him in faith and ask for His mercy every. time. I. go. to. Mass.

Religion will not get you into Heaven. You can go through all the Sacraments you want and none of them will get you into Heaven. You MUST turn to Him in faith and repent.

Why do you insist that I haven’t done this? Can you see my heart? Wow. I didn’t realize people had that ability over the internet.

I’m not depending on “Religion” to get me into heaven, I don’t know where you got that impression. My faith is in Christ Jesus. You’re not paying attention if you think I believe otherwise. I was NOT looking to become Catholic, I was looking for Truth. I was sick of the division of Protestantism and was trying to figure out which Church had it right. I was sure it was NOT the Catholic Church because I’d been told SO MANY lies about what Catholics believe and practice. So I decided to learn about Catholicism straight from “the horse’s mouth” and God. Moved. Me. Don’t you DARE say that I need to REPENT of anything. I believe in Jesus Christ who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, and born of the Virgin Mary. For MY sins, He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried. He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures and ascended into Heaven. He will come again in Glory to judge the living and the dead, and His Kingdom will have no end.

If you think I need to repent of any of that then I don’t want anything to do with your brand of Christianity, thankyouverymuch.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

Thank you Pixie Dust.
Especially for challenging this arrogant person about his or her ability to know whether you have repented of your sins or not.
These extreme fundamentalists are so arrogant and presumptuous that it is absolutely sickening. Sickening.

Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+