The Bible is Catholic -

[JRKH]

Just like they did the first time he showed up.

:newidea: OIKODOMESO!!! Let me repeat that: **OIKODOMESO! **Jesus said “I WILL build my church” – IOW: it ain’t finished yet.

**I quibble with your term “evolving revelation” because doctrine does not evolve, only our understanding evolves – which in practice can FEEL the same. ** But the point here is that “oikodomeso” implies an ongoing process and not a closed one. The delineation of doctrine evolves as new challenges affront the Church, and in HIS Church, Christ rises to meet those challenges, as he promised he would.

Sometimes I am REALLY slow! :doh2:

Thanks for the “quibble”. You expressed it much better than I did.

As for Slow - I was away for 35 years before coming back last year thanks to the Loving nudge of my godfather and many years of prayers from my mother. Where you had to find the Church from the outside, I was born and raised in her and tossed her aside.
I think I’ll take my “Dopey” prize now.:doh2: :whacky:

Peace
James

Peace
James

 

[Protestant101]

Thanks for the “quibble”. You expressed it much better than I did.

As for Slow - I was away for 35 years before coming back last year thanks to the Loving nudge of my godfather and many years of prayers from my mother. Where you had to find the Church from the outside, I was born and raised in her and tossed her aside.
I think I’ll take my “Dopey” prize now.:doh2: :whacky:

Peace
James

Peace
James

Ah! You don’t need a “Dopey Prize!” Your posts here are fine. I appreciate all here who challenge me without insulting me personally.

 

[Jimmy_B]

… That the Bible is, in fact, a Catholic book and cannot be properly understood outside of the traditions and teachings of the Catholic Church…

Yep…the Bible is a “Catholic Book”!

Great thread, I give it five stars!!!

Peace

 

[Protestant101]

After starting and following this discussion over the many days something becomes very apparent. It seems that certain of our protestant friends here suffer from “Bible Worship”. They have taken something material, ink, paper, and glue and elevated it to an unwarrented status.
Any comment made along the lines of the Bible, that COLLECTION of books, having a visible, tracable, human history going back to the One Church is met with comments such as,
“You have no respect for the Word of God”,
and other comments along the lines of,
“The Bible is the Word of God and Thats it. Don’t question where it came from, just accept it.”

One of the problems I see here though is simply that Catholics seem to be saying that they actually wrote the Bible; all they did was to provide a translation of same.

In order for me to be a true “Bible Worshipper;” I would not be able to make most of the comments I have here, about it.

I have not said things like “Do not question it” in terms of where it came from. Rather; I have questioned the answers given here about that very thing.

For eg. when I asked “mercygate” about what are the “primary sources” being referred to by Catholics here; all she could do is to quote Catholic writers, which to me, would not be a “primary source.” The Bible itself is the primary source, but many do not like that because it does not have the apologetics they need to back up their denomination’s various angles on this point we are discussing.

The Bible itself makes the claim to have existed well before the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[mercygate]

One of the problems I see here though is simply that Catholics seem to be saying that they actually wrote the Bible; all they did was to provide a translation of same.

I really do not understand this. What “translation”? What I see is that you seem not to connect the dots between the upper room, the Apostles, the Church at Jerusalem, united with the Church at Damascus, Antioch, etc., with Paul, the other Apostles, the spread of the Church throughout Asia and to Rome – still all the same Church. Those guys writing the New Testament. Their descendents: of RECORD, passing the faith as witnessed in writing by Justin Martyr, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache . . . Irenaeus . . . Movin’ on up through the 3rd Century: Names, dates, places. Continuity of teaching.

And the Church of that era and those places, united in faith, can be traced in doctrine and practice to the Catholic (and Orthodox) Churches of today. The guys who wrote the New Testament, and the guys who closed the canon of the Old Testament **for the Church **were catholic (whether you spell it with a small “c” or a capital “c”. They were not Gnostics, Montanists, Sabellians etc. By 107 A.D. it was necessary to distinguish the “catholic” church from the heretical sects. Ignatius used the word “catholic” to indicate that THE Church was the one that was all propagated on the foundation of the Apostles – not the Christianized heretical groups.

In order for me to be a true “Bible Worshipper;” I would not be able to make most of the comments I have here, about it.

I have not said things like “Do not question it” in terms of where it came from. Rather; I have questioned the answers given here about that very thing.

Well, FWIW, I find the term “Bible worshipper” offensive myself. Even if it were true, I would not use it.

For eg. when I asked “mercygate” about what are the “primary sources” being referred to by Catholics here; all she could do is to quote Catholic writers, which to me, would not be a “primary source.”

I guess you’re not an academic, huh? Since when is Josephus a “Catholic writer?” If I read “Catholic” sources from the SECOND CENTURY and those sources state Catholic teachings still held by the Church, the WORST you can say is that the Church has been consistent in hanging on to what it received from the Apostolic age.

The Bible itself is the primary source, but many do not like that because it does not have the apologetics they need to back up their denomination’s various angles on this point we are discussing.

Still looking for those second Century SDA sources – if you’re trying to demonstrate historical continuity.

The Bible itself makes the claim to have existed well before the Roman Catholic Church.

You have stated this several times but though I have read the Bible MANY times, I don’t know the Scripture you are pointing to here. Can you give us the citation, please? You KNOW we won’t agree with you, but if this is a belief of the SDA, maybe it would help us to understand where you’re coming from.

 

[JRKH]

Ah! You don’t need a “Dopey Prize!” Your posts here are fine. I appreciate all here who challenge me without insulting me personally.

Thanks -
I know we can all get testy here, and sometimes we seem to be talking “past each other”, but I hope we all learn things from each other.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

One of the problems I see here though is simply that Catholics **seem to be saying **that they actually wrote the Bible; all they did was to provide a translation of same.

This is something I really try to stay away from; reacting to what someone “seems” to be saying. My advise to all posters is to look at what is written and respond to that. If clarification is in order, ask for it.
As to the "translation issue - Please Calrify.

In order for me to be a true “Bible Worshipper;” I would not be able to make most of the comments I have here, about it.

Actually I wasn’t picking on anyone in particular, except maybe “someotherguy”, who made the comment about my level of respect for scripture.
It is one of my “pet peeves”, as it were, to see people become so wound up in the Bible that they can’t see anything else. I don’t know you well enough to say that about you personally, but I do have concern about how widely read you are.

I have not said things like “Do not question it” in terms of where it came from. Rather; I have questioned the answers given here about that very thing.

Forgive me, but your reluctance to engage me in the “little scenerio” earlier, smacked of, “Do not question the Bible” to me. To me, there is a real need to know “Where the Bible Came From”. The “God’s Word” answer is fine, but I still want to know about where this Book/Volume/corporeal object came into being. That requires history - Church history.

For eg. when I asked “mercygate” about what are the “primary sources” being referred to by Catholics here; all she could do is to quote Catholic writers, which to me, would not be a “primary source.” The Bible itself is the primary source, but many do not like that because it does not have the apologetics they need to back up their denomination’s various angles on this point we are discussing.

She refered to these sources coming from a secular education. If I drew anything from that it would be that the sources would be decidedly not “Catholic”, but rather “historical”. The Bible is A primary source, but not necessarily THE primary source for Historical Accuracy.

The Bible itself makes the claim to have existed well before the Roman Catholic Church.

So exactly which Book, out of the 73 written over the course of a thousand years or so, tells us that these specific 73 books belong in the Bible, and when was this particular Book written?

Peace
James

 

[ibkc]

For eg. when I asked “mercygate” about what are the “primary sources” being referred to by Catholics here; all she could do is to quote Catholic writers, which to me, would not be a “primary source.”

And why not? For centuries the Catholic Church was all there was. If you were a Christian, and not a gnostic or something, you belonged to the universal church - the CATHOLIC Church. Catholic = Universal.

Second, you don’t seem to understand what “primary source” means. In this discussion it would be the writings of people who were alive and active in Christianity during the days of the early Church. You would toss the testimony of such men out simply because they don’t say what you’d like them to say? Can you point us to primary sources which do say what you’d like them to say?

The Bible itself is the primary source, but many do not like that because it does not have the apologetics they need to back up their denomination’s various angles on this point we are discussing.

The Bible is fully Catholic, through and through. The farther away from the Catholic Church, the more mental gymnastics and pretzel logic a “denomination” has to go through to get their interpretations to fit.

The Bible itself makes the claim to have existed well before the Roman Catholic Church.

So to you, the Bible is sentient, and makes claims all on its own. And according to you, false claims.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

SIA, yes I think I know what you are trying to indicate about the Catholic church being east and west. As others have expressed here, both east and west if I could use Pope John Paul the great description, are the Lungs of the body of Jesus Christ on earth. We are still one holy apostolic Catholic church. You seem to indicate that we are different churches? This is not the case, and has never been the case. Technicalities of culture ,language and geography does not divide the 2000 year old Christian belief Church. Constantine who moved his capital to constinople from Rome, does not prove that the Catholic church was divided. The Roman Emperor Constantine is recognized by the Eastern Catholic church as a Saint, while the Roman Catholic church sees Constantine as a good man who lifted the persecution of the Catholic church. The Pope remained in Rome while the Eastern Catholic church suffered many heresies and apostates while in the east under Constantine Rule.Arguably one can take individual statements from saints, and early church fathers, about the authority from these early times. The fact is The Pope was and still is recognized as the Successor of Peter, The saints can attest to this authority from antiquity.

And it is a recognized as fact that Constantine, called all Bishops from both the eastern Church and western church to put the bible together. Now those who officially canonized the bible, were Bishops and Saints, who adhered to the authority of Rome the Pope, not Constantine. And later the Catholic Church through her councils continued to review the canonized books, and always approval was met by The Roman Pope, and Catholic church councils.

As much as I would love to debate the Eastern and Western Church as two different church’s I cannot, because it is not so.

Now, 11 centuries later, when authority becomes an issue from the eastern church, This is to far along from when the Popes and the Catholic church councils already approved the books of the bible as canonical.A schism occurs from the Eastern Orthodox Catholic church from the Western Church 11 centuries later. This does not imply two different Christianities as non catholics and protestants, 1600 years later have come to define their doctrinal beliefs. The Eastern Catholic church at the time of comprising the bible, if you hear from these Saints and Fathers of the Church, You would not hear of them officially speaking division as you appear to indicate here, but in agreement with the Pope chair of Peter. Even Constantine, and other pagan rulers knew wherever the Bishop of Rome is their is the Church of Jesus Christ.

To argue a schism that occurs 1100 years after the Catholic church canonized the Holy bible, does not qualify an argument between the Eastern Lung of the Catholic church and Western Lung of the Catholic church. What is being stated here, is that the authority of Peter’s Chair and the infallibility of the unified bishops and saints from both east and west canonized the bible. “Rome has spoken” is a phrase that has been used to settle the doctrinal teachings of the Catholic Church, since Peter was given the authority from Jesus himself.

Ps. I can conjurr up some arguments from the east and west individual Fathers and bishops from antiquity, but these do not qualify, the authority of the Whole body of the Catholic faith authority and teachings, that are finalized by Peter’s Chair the Pope, and Councils.

Can you think of another reason why you dont accept the historical fact that the Catholic church canonized the Holy bible, 1800 years before Protestantism ever existed, and never heard of a King James version that took out 7 of the canonized books of the bible.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

With all do respect to protestant101, regarding apochrypha books, deutorconanical books, pseudo books of the bible. It should be stated here, that the Catholic church since the 3rd century a.d. on had already made these arguments and settled them, thus giving us the authentic books of the bible.

To bring these same arguments up that have already been settled, only qualifies that a bible has already been in existance, before any other protestant denomination ever existed. To argue today what books are apocrypha etc, only states one making the argument, has invented a new christian theology, and is claiming an outside authority of Jesus Christ to canonize his or hers own books of the bible, and refuses to adhere to the authority of Jesus Christ.

This new Christian thought of approving what is inspired and what is not, has no proven authority from God to determine which books are inspired of God and which are not. So protestant101 is following his own authority of the bible, if the Holy bible that the Catholic church gives us, is not accepted.

I believe it needs to be clarified here again that the bible did not originate from Rome herself. The Catholic church because it is the only one from the apostles collected the writings and letters that were being used in the Catholic liturgies, and because unapproved or nonauthentic letters from the apostles began to circulate. So the Catholic church canonized the books of the bible to be used universally in the Catholic liturgies, at this time there were no protestants only heretics that existed.

We dont hear about any dispute about the canonized books until St. Jerome translated the already canonized bible into the vulgate. Even Jerome disputed the 7 books from the septuagint, but adhered to the authority of the Pope to leave them in the bible because Jesus quoted from these disputed books, that protestant101 is disputing here again. These arguments about the bible have already been answered.

Protestant101, if you cannot accept historical Christian and Pagan, Jewish fact that the bible was indeed canonized by the Catholic church.

Then could you please inform us where you got your bible?, or can you give a historical account from where you got your bible?. instead of making noise that you cant accept the historical facts laid out in front of you, by these very informative posts by Catholics, If you have a King James Version, then lets call it what it is, a version of the Holy Bible, not the whole bible. The King James version is the Holy bible except 7 books removed 1800 years later, and added words to the sacred scriptures. (are you aware of these noticable differences of the bible)iIf you research bible history,then you will confirm that the Catholic church gave you the bible, and that today your Christian sect, denies the authority who gave it to your founders, and reject books that were approved as inspired by God for 1800 years of Christians who lived before your founders founded your belief system. I can understand your founders not believing the Truth, for one they were not their when the books were canonized, the only Christians that existed were Catholics and we Roman Catholics practice and proclaim from the same books the Catholic christians used since the apostles.

Peace be with you

 

[joe370]

Good grief, Joe. Calm down. The evidence and lack of evidence are irrefutable. No need to get upset.

Bad case of the flu; I apologize!!!

 

[Protestant101]

She refered to these sources coming from a secular education. If I drew anything from that it would be that the sources would be decidedly not “Catholic”, but rather “historical”. The Bible is A primary source, but not necessarily THE primary source for Historical Accuracy.
Peace
James

Most history books are not inspired, and many are written by those with activist intentions in their writings. One of the things I am trying to question here, is that do we really NEED history to determine Biblical inspiration, or “canonization?”

I am not dismissing historical accounts of same; just making the point that many denominations; including the Roman Catholics have weaved their own special histories, always amenable, of course, to their own doctrines and agendas.

When I run into this kind of competition for “truth” and “references” and “proof;” I, along with many other Bible students will go back to the Word itself; and examine instead, only the textual evidence. Sticking to the text itself; it is easy to see how the Apocryphal books carry the full force of spiritualistic doctrines, which go in direct defiance of the Bible.

Trying to claim “History” as the sole, or major “proof” of what is true scipture; is like trying to prove the point that there is such a thing as apples, by showing people only oranges.

Even **if **all that you say is true; it would not be out of bounds for Christians, after the Catholics put out their version of the Bible, to look at it all and say; “hey, wait a minute! Something is not right here.” There simply would be nothing wrong with such a thing; Catholics here have already made the claim that we learn and grow in our understandings of truth; so Protestants who looked at the Catholic version of the Bible would not be “wrong” for looking at it and saying something was not right there.

As I mentioned, the Bible tells us that the Scriptures existed well before the Catholic Church. Any future Scriptures that were added or canonized, after the books being referred to there, would have to be in agreement with what was already written. And the apocryphal books certainly are not in agreement with the current 66 books of the Bible.

I happen to be a history buff; and Biblical history is indeed very intersting to provide some important facts; yet the Bible will always remain it’s own, best expositor, due to the many and varied activist accounts of history. History is fallible. God’s word is infallible.

 

[joe370]

I am waiting. They are indeed “Apocrypha.”

Sorry, but I will have to respectfully disagree. More and more protestant scholars are coming to this realization. This is just one of many examples.

Quote from the article…

“First, I will give the basic arguments of reformed theologian Dr. Ian Paisley as they were presented to me, and **I will respond, demonstrating that each argument is entirely false with specific responses exclusively from noted Protestant scholarly sources. **The following points of Dr. Paisley are the strongest standard arguments most Protestants give. If someone has others they are welcome.”

nicenetruth.com/home/2007/12/protestants-hav.html

 

[joe370]

Most history books are not inspired, and many are written by those with activist intentions in their writings. One of the things I am trying to question here, is that do we really NEED history to determine Biblical inspiration, or “canonization?”

I am not dismissing historical accounts of same; just making the point that many denominations; including the Roman Catholics have weaved their own special histories, always amenable, of course, to their own doctrines and agendas.

When I run into this kind of competition for “truth” and “references” and “proof;” I, along with many other Bible students will go back to the Word itself; and examine instead, only the textual evidence. Sticking to the text itself; it is easy to see how the Apocryphal books carry the full force of spiritualistic doctrines, which go in direct defiance of the Bible.

Trying to claim “History” as the sole, or major “proof” of what is true scipture; is like trying to prove the point that there is such a thing as apples, by showing people only oranges.

Even **if **all that you say is true; it would not be out of bounds for Christians, after the Catholics put out their version of the Bible, to look at it all and say; “hey, wait a minute! Something is not right here.” There simply would be nothing wrong with such a thing; Catholics here have already made the claim that we learn and grow in our understandings of truth; so Protestants who looked at the Catholic version of the Bible would not be “wrong” for looking at it and saying something was not right there.

As I mentioned, the Bible tells us that the Scriptures existed well before the Catholic Church. Any future Scriptures that were added or canonized, after the books being referred to there, would have to be in agreement with what was already written. And the apocryphal books certainly are not in agreement with the current 66 books of the Bible.

I happen to be a history buff; and Biblical history is indeed very intersting to provide some important facts; yet the Bible will always remain it’s own, best expositor, due to the many and varied activist accounts of history. History is fallible. God’s word is infallible.

*How can I be sure that God’s word is infallible? As a former Lutheran, I could never honsetly answer that question! *

 

[mercygate]

Most history books are not inspired, and many are written by those with activist intentions in their writings. One of the things I am trying to question here, is that do we really NEED history to determine Biblical inspiration, or “canonization?”

I am not dismissing historical accounts of same; just making the point that many denominations; including the Roman Catholics have weaved their own special histories, always amenable, of course, to their own doctrines and agendas.

When I run into this kind of competition for “truth” and “references” and “proof;” I, along with many other Bible students will go back to the Word itself; and examine instead, only the textual evidence. Sticking to the text itself; it is easy to see how the Apocryphal books carry the full force of spiritualistic doctrines, which go in direct defiance of the Bible.

Trying to claim “History” as the sole, or major “proof” of what is true scipture; is like trying to prove the point that there is such a thing as apples, by showing people only oranges.

Even **if **all that you say is true; it would not be out of bounds for Christians, after the Catholics put out their version of the Bible, to look at it all and say; “hey, wait a minute! Something is not right here.” There simply would be nothing wrong with such a thing; Catholics here have already made the claim that we learn and grow in our understandings of truth; so Protestants who looked at the Catholic version of the Bible would not be “wrong” for looking at it and saying something was not right there.

As I mentioned, the Bible tells us that the Scriptures existed well before the Catholic Church. Any future Scriptures that were added or canonized, after the books being referred to there, would have to be in agreement with what was already written. And the apocryphal books certainly are not in agreement with the current 66 books of the Bible.

I happen to be a history buff; and Biblical history is indeed very intersting to provide some important facts; yet the Bible will always remain it’s own, best expositor, due to the many and varied activist accounts of history. History is fallible. God’s word is infallible.

One more time, Protestant101: Please show us how and where the Bible tells us that the Scriptures existed before the Catholic Church. You don’t mean that the OT was WRITTEN before 33 A.D., do you? Because nobody is claiming that the Apostles wrote Genesis! (duh).

 

[JRKH]

Most history books are not inspired, and many are written by those with activist intentions in their writings.

So read as many as possible to get a balanced view.

One of the things I am trying to question here, is that do we really NEED history to determine Biblical inspiration, or “canonization?”

Yes.

I am not dismissing historical accounts of same; just making the point that many denominations; including the Roman Catholics have weaved their own special histories, always amenable, of course, to their own doctrines and agendas.

But you have yet to provide any sources to back up your view. Instead you dance and evade.

When I run into this kind of competition for “truth” and “references” and “proof;” I, along with many other Bible students will go back to the Word itself; and examine instead, only the textual evidence. Sticking to the text itself; it is easy to see how the Apocryphal books carry the full force of spiritualistic doctrines, which go in direct defiance of the Bible.

Come-on Protestant101, you can do better than this.
You have been raised and taught with a Bible missing more than 7 books and told, by another human being, that this is the entire Bible. So, of course, if you continue to study from a Bible missing books it is likely that you will reject things that are actually correct if you were using a complete Bible.
It’s like playing solitare with only 50 cards.

Trying to claim “History” as the sole, or major “proof” of what is true scipture; is like trying to prove the point that there is such a thing as apples, by showing people only oranges.

History is the thing that tells us what books were considered inspired by those people who were closest in time, teaching and provable succession to the origional writers. One cannot rely on scripture for this because any heretic in the early centuries could have put together any combination of books and called it the Word of God. As a matter of fact some did try to pass off phony books as Apostolic and inspired. It was the Church who weeded these things out and canonized the Books of the Bible to protect them for future generations. We know this, not because of what the Bible says for even a heretical Bible will agree with tiself. Rather it is because of the verifiable historical evidence.

Even **if **all that you say is true; it would not be out of bounds for Christians, after the Catholics put out their version of the Bible, to look at it all and say; “hey, wait a minute! Something is not right here.” There simply would be nothing wrong with such a thing; Catholics here have already made the claim that we learn and grow in our understandings of truth; so Protestants who looked at the Catholic version of the Bible would not be “wrong” for looking at it and saying something was not right there.

Actually you have put your finger on the crux of the matter right here. Protestants have been doing precicely this for 500 years. First Luther stole 7 books out of the Bible and passed it off “complete”. Then, since he also convinced you that the Bible is all you need, and everyones interpretation is equal, various people and groups have felt it to be perfectly acceptable to form whatever “Bible Based” theology suits them. This is why the Church relies on the centuries of careful study and consistant apostolic teaching of the magesterium.

As I mentioned, the Bible tells us that the Scriptures existed well before the Catholic Church. Any future Scriptures that were added or canonized, after the books being referred to there, would have to be in agreement with what was already written. And the apocryphal books certainly are not in agreement with the current 66 books of the Bible.

Yes you mentioned that earlier, and I asked for the specific passage Book, chapter and verse. You have yet to supply it.

I happen to be a history buff; and Biblical history is indeed very intersting to provide some important facts; yet the Bible will always remain it’s own, best expositor, due to the many and varied activist accounts of history. History is fallible. God’s word is infallible.

You are indeed right. God’s Word is indeed infallable. And God’s Word is Jesus Christ Himself. God’s Word needs no written volume. He writes His Law upon our Hearts. He gives us a Kingdom of beauty and Truth. He gives us a Kingdom overseen by wise and Holy rulers, headed by the King’s Steward, the Vicar of Christ, Our Holy Father and the magesterium to guide us in the ways of the Holy Spirit.
This Church, this visible Kingdom provided us with a volume of the best and most wonderful writings of God’s inspired servants. This Volume, at least most of it, is the very book you venerate so much.

Peace
James

 

[Protestant101]

*How can I be sure that God’s word is infallible? As a former Lutheran, I could never honsetly answer that question! *

Hmm; why would you even be a Christian; if your were so unsure of God’s Word? When I sit down to read God’s Word, or to listen to it in my MP3 player; it never once comes across as “fallible.” I have found the Word of God to be the Voice of God to my soul. The inspiration and infallibility of Scripture is proven within it’s own text.

 

[Protestant101]

Come-on Protestant101, you can do better than this.
You have been raised and taught with a Bible missing more than 7 books and told, by another human being, that this is the entire Bible. So, of course, if you continue to study from a Bible missing books it is likely that you will reject things that are actually correct if you were using a complete Bible. It’s like playing solitare with only 50 cards.

Unfortunately; Catholics here have been either unable or unwilling to provide us with one teaching from the Protestant Canon which is made “MORE COMPLETE” by something in the Apocrypha, which I have requested quite a number of times. That is all the proof I need; but there is lots more too.

If, as you say that the Bible is “not complete” without the Apocrypha books, then you indirectly concede that these must be in agreement with all doctrines in the Protestant Canon. This has not been shown to be the case.

 

[ibkc]

Unfortunately; Catholics here have been either unable or unwilling to provide us with one teaching from the Protestant Canon which is made “MORE COMPLETE” by something in the Apocrypha, which I have requested quite a number of times. That is all the proof I need; but there is lots more too.

You keep referring to the “Protestant Canon.” How was this “Protestant Canon” determined? When was it determined? Who determined it? What was the rationale? Why were the Deuterocanonicals considered “Apocrypha”? Since you are a “history buff,” surely you know the answers to these questions and will be willing and able to share.

 

[joe370]

Hmm; why would you even be a Christian; if your were so unsure of God’s Word? When I sit down to read God’s Word, or to listen to it in my MP3 player; it never once comes I have found the Word of God to be the Voice of God to my soul. The inspiration and infallibility of Scripture is proven within it’s own text.across as “fallible.” I have found the Word of God to be the Voice of God to my soul. The inspiration and infallibility of Scripture is proven within it’s own text.

You said last night you were waiting for me to send you something to prove that the 7 reputed “apocrypha” books were a part of the cannon in the 4th century, not placed there by the C.C. in the 16th century, and I did. Any comments by the views of these protestant scholars?

Just curious, why are you here at a catholic forum if you are so certain in your beliefs? I came here because of my lingering doubts as a former protestant.

I’m not unsure any more; as a protestant I was riddled
with doubt; as a catholic, I am free of all lingering doubt because the C.C. is the only church that can trace its descent all way back to the apostles; the only church promised by God to be with that church forever, through every age, until the end of time. All other churches can only trace their descent back to a man, including your church.

Again, how can you be sure that the bible is infallible?

You said, The inspiration and infallibility of Scripture is proven within it’s own text.across as “fallible.” Prove to me that the inspiration and infallibility of scripture is proven within it’s own text.across as "fallible; no sarcasm intended; this is a question I could not answer as a former lutheran. If you trust the collection of books codified by the C.C. in the 4th century, why not trust the C.C. What ever reason you give me for not trusting the C.C. makes me wonder why you are so certain the C.C. got it right regarding the word of God.

If you don’t mind me asking, do you believe in sola scriptura or do you go by what the Seventh-day Adventist Church teaches?

The origin of the Seventh-day Adventists can be traced to the Millerite Movement of the 19th Century. This movement was largely responsible for what has been called the Great second advent awakening. William Miller (1782-1849) was a farmer who settled in up state New York after the war of 1812. He was originally a Deist (a person who believes that God created the universe but has not been actively involved since). After two years of private Bible study, Miller converted to Christianity and became a Baptist lay leader. He was convinced that the Bible contained coded information about the end of the world and the Second Coming of Jesus. He also realized that he had an obligation to teach his findings to others. In 1831, he started to preach; the next year, he wrote articles about his findings. In 1833, he published a pamphlet on end-time prophecy. In 1836, his book Evidences from Scripture and History of the Second Coming of Christ about the Year 1843 was published.