The Catholic church did not give us the Bible

[Non_Serviam]

I find it ironic that the thread on ACORN in the politics forum have ended up in a similar situation to this thread.

Sexual wrongdoing was perpetuated by ACORN representatves and debate on that thread is split whether this reflects on ACORN or only the individuals who committed the acts.

Of note is the fact that most Catholics posting there think it reflects on the organization as a whole.

 

[leighfus]

Not only is he misinformed, and uneducated in the faith, he truly believes this.
But with his posting this, only shows how hard it is for non-Catholics to accept this to be true.

Historically, it was not until the 3rd century, nearly 200 years after our Lord’s return to His heavenly throne, that a bishop of Rome – one of hundreds of independent bishops existing at that time – cited Matthew 16:18 as evidence Peter had been appointed bishop of Rome and head of the Church. This was a brazen grab for power by Calixtus 1 whose interpretation of Matthew 16:18 contradicted that of the leading theologians of his day. That grab for power died an ignominious death when Tertullian, bishop of Carthage, and others, called Calixtus 1 a “usurper.” From our vantage point 2000 years later, it is unimpeachable proof that Rome lies when it claims the office of the papacy has been in existence from the time of Peter.

Remember, if you will, the episode at Caesarea Philippi. There, Jesus asked His Apostles, “Who do YE say that I am?” It was Peter who responded for the twelve with this statement of FACT: “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Then said our Lord, “Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, that thou art PETER, and upon this ROCK I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (Matthew 16:17, 18) In English, Latin, Aramaic, and other languages the words Peter and rock are entirely different. Unfortunately for Roman Catholics whose beliefs rest heavily on the papacy, Greek is a far more precise language.

 

[leighfus]

We do not, we consider Protestants to be our separated brothers and sisters, however when there is ignorance, bigotry, and outright malicious attacks there needs to be an immediate, factual, and strong rebuff. You will notice that most responses will state something like “Some Protestants, a few Protestants, or something to that effect” to identify those who are acting in an unchristian manner.

Two issues that really chap my hide is when there are attacks on the Blessed Mother and the Priesthood.

Historically, it was not until the 3rd century, nearly 200 years after our Lord’s return to His heavenly throne, that a bishop of Rome – one of hundreds of independent bishops existing at that time – cited Matthew 16:18 as evidence Peter had been appointed bishop of Rome and head of the Church. This was a brazen grab for power by Calixtus 1 whose interpretation of Matthew 16:18 contradicted that of the leading theologians of his day. That grab for power died an ignominious death when Tertullian, bishop of Carthage, and others, called Calixtus 1 a “usurper.” From our vantage point 2000 years later, it is unimpeachable proof that Rome lies when it claims the office of the papacy has been in existence from the time of Peter.

Remember, if you will, the episode at Caesarea Philippi. There, Jesus asked His Apostles, “Who do YE say that I am?” It was Peter who responded for the twelve with this statement of FACT: “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Then said our Lord, “Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, that thou art PETER, and upon this ROCK I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (Matthew 16:17, 18) In English, Latin, Aramaic, and other languages the words Peter and rock are entirely different. Unfortunately for Roman Catholics whose beliefs rest heavily on the papacy, Greek is a far more precise language.

 

[jmcrae]

Historically, it was not until the 3rd century, nearly 200 years after our Lord’s return to His heavenly throne, that a bishop of Rome – one of hundreds of independent bishops existing at that time – cited Matthew 16:18 as evidence Peter had been appointed bishop of Rome and head of the Church. This was a brazen grab for power by Calixtus 1 whose interpretation of Matthew 16:18 contradicted that of the leading theologians of his day. That grab for power died an ignominious death when Tertullian, bishop of Carthage, and others, called Calixtus 1 a “usurper.” From our vantage point 2000 years later, it is unimpeachable proof that Rome lies when it claims the office of the papacy has been in existence from the time of Peter.

And yet St. Irenaeus of Lyons, writing in the year 180 AD, tells us to look to the Bishop of Rome, when in doubt.

Remember, if you will, the episode at Caesarea Philippi. There, Jesus asked His Apostles, “Who do YE say that I am?” It was Peter who responded for the twelve with this statement of FACT: “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Then said our Lord, “Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, that thou art PETER, and upon this ROCK I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (Matthew 16:17, 18) In English, Latin, Aramaic, and other languages the words Peter and rock are entirely different. Unfortunately for Roman Catholics whose beliefs rest heavily on the papacy, Greek is a far more precise language.

In the original Aramaic, which Jesus was speaking at that particular moment in time, Jesus said, “Thou art Kephas, and upon this kephas I will build my Church.”

However, speculating for a moment - if it is true that Simon’s name change had absolutely nothing to do with what Jesus was talking about, then what was the purpose of the name change, and why was it made at that particular moment in time? It seems odd that Jesus would just suddenly change Simon’s name, right in the middle of a sentence talking about something completely unrelated. (Was Jesus completely neurotic? Did He have some kind of attention deficit thing going on?)

 

[leighfus]

Amen from another Protestant.

agreed… I try to keep my posts factual

 

[Bill_Pick]

all you have done is espoused ignorance and bigotry by your remarks. I challenge you to show me in sacred scripture, the ccc, or any other catholic document where a pedophile/predator behavior is approved of, supported by the cc, and generally accepted by the faithful. **you can not!!! **a pedophile priest was a pedophile/predator before he was a priest, and it could have ties to homosexuality or not i do not know or care. Pedophiles/predators are notorious for seeking out positions that put them in close proximity of potential victims e.g. Teachers, scout leaders, day care workers, and yes even christian: Pentecostal/charismatic pastors, christian: Pentecostal/charismatic youth pastors and any number of other denomination you wish to list. The priesthood is just one of them. Yes, the cc mishandled the initial out cry of abuse, either due to lack of experience, ability, or willing cover up, but it is now being dealt with, as it should be. The victims are in need of our prayers for healing and we need to pray for the cc to take the right path in dealing with this issue. The cc is not made up of saints who are perfect, rather it is made up of sinners, and all are sinners, even you. So to come here with such malicious statements really shows just how shallow your grasp on christianity is and shows how little christian charity you really posses.

do you think he can understand this or is he just not to smart

 

[Bill_Pick]

Actually the Catholic Church was the first church. All the other churches are break-offs from the original church. It may have not been perfect, but who is? Jesus said His Grace would cover our sins. The Vulgate, the first Bible, was written in Latin, therefore it is Catholic.

I see no correlation between the Bible and the bad behavior of the priests? How many non-catholic ministers have been caught in the act of bad behavior? A very poor argument!

Nottoosmart,A very good name, not too smart Has post the more studip post I have ever seen post on thes boards.Does he know about he is talking we all know abot the priests but what does he are any know about the in

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

agreed… I try to keep my posts factual

Gabriel of 12;

Interesting post? Iam amazed how facts and history proves the Catholics position of the bible coming into existence, yet others relate to other off topic subjects in a negative manner and outbursts that are uncalled for assuming them to be fact or true from an opinion.

This type of negativity off topic insertions and accusations comes from those in retreat or defeat. The OP has been answered The authentic books of the Bible was officially canonized as inspired of God from The Catholic Church which existed before the New Testament.

If Protestants have accepted this historical fact; Now we can move on to the other negative assertions of the body of Jesus Christ.

Peace be with you

 

[wmscott]

do you think he can understand this or is he just not to smart

After seeing his later comments like “its just a game for him” I doubt he really has the intellectual honesty to retract or understand what I replied to him with.

 

[wmscott]

leighfus;:

Historically, it was not until the 3rd century, nearly 200 years after our Lord’s return to His heavenly throne, that a bishop of Rome – one of hundreds of independent bishops existing at that time – cited Matthew 16:18 as evidence Peter had been appointed bishop of Rome and head of the Church. This was a brazen grab for power by Calixtus 1 whose interpretation of Matthew 16:18 contradicted that of the leading theologians of his day. That grab for power died an ignominious death when Tertullian, bishop of Carthage, and others, called Calixtus 1 a “usurper.” From our vantage point 2000 years later, it is unimpeachable proof that Rome lies when it claims the office of the papacy has been in existence from the time of Peter.

Remember, if you will, the episode at Caesarea Philippi. There, Jesus asked His Apostles, “Who do YE say that I am?” It was Peter who responded for the twelve with this statement of FACT: “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Then said our Lord, “Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, that thou art PETER, and upon this ROCK I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (Matthew 16:17, 18) In English, Latin, Aramaic, and other languages the words Peter and rock are entirely different. Unfortunately for Roman Catholics whose beliefs rest heavily on the papacy, Greek is a far more precise language.

 

[PRmerger]

The Bible says, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God.” 2 Timothy 3:16. “Prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” 2 Peter 1:21. “The scripture cannot be broken.” John 10:35.

It was written by men who were guided by the Holy Ghost. It cannot be broken or proved untrue.

Amen! That’s very Catholic of you to say that!

 

[marco95330]

Protestants must face the fact that the catholic church, guided by the Holy Spirit, compiled the bible and and decided which books were inspired by GOD. There is no way around this, history proves that. As far as the sex scandals, we should stop expecting priests to be sinless and perfect, remember only Jesus was perfect. Priests are just humans and like the bible says the devil attacks those whom are closest to GOD. So what better way than by attacking the church that Christ founded. Bottom line is that the catholic church came before the bible directly from Jesus. All other denominations came from the church. GOD BLESS ALL…

 

[jen_fla]

Protestants must face the fact that the catholic church, guided by the Holy Spirit, compiled the bible and and decided which books were inspired by GOD. There is no way around this, history proves that. As far as the sex scandals, we should stop expecting priests to be sinless and perfect, remember only Jesus was perfect. Priests are just humans and like the bible says the devil attacks those whom are closest to GOD. So what better way than by attacking the church that Christ founded. Bottom line is that the catholic church came before the bible directly from Jesus. All other denominations came from the church. GOD BLESS ALL…

amen!

 

[benedictus2]

…unless you also want to say that the Catholic church gave us the inquisition and the priest sex abuse scandals.

The point being that you can not take credit for the positive while at the same time pass the buck on the negative. A little consistency on this please.

You are playing true to your name here.

Point 1: The Bible, inquisition, sex abuse are not mututally inclusive items that means if you take one you have to take the others.

Point 2: Yes we did give you the Bible, yes there was an inquisition, yes there was sexual abuse in the church.

Your error is in thinking we are denying the the latter two.

But your understanding of the inquisition is probably extremely flawed, and the sexual abuse scandal is not limited to the Catholic church but is as rampant (probably even more so) in Protestant churches.

So as an OP your post does not make one bit of sense.

 

[benedictus2]

do you think he can understand this or is he just not to smart

The latter

 

[benedictus2]

We do not, we consider Protestants to be our separated brothers and sisters, however when there is ignorance, bigotry, and outright malicious attacks there needs to be an immediate, factual, and strong rebuff. .

 

[Hisalone]

You are playing true to your name here.

Point 1: The Bible, inquisition, sex abuse are not mututally inclusive items that means if you take one you have to take the others.

Point 2: Yes we did give you the Bible, yes there was an inquisition, yes there was sexual abuse in the church.

Your error is in thinking we are denying the the latter two.

But your understanding of the inquisition is probably extremely flawed, and the sexual abuse scandal is not limited to the Catholic church but is as rampant (probably even more so) in Protestant churches.

So as an OP your post does not make one bit of sense.

The Catolic Church did not give us the bible. God did. How pre sumptuous to say otherwise.

Very few Catholics can admit to the seriousness of the sin that caused others to leave her.

 

[benedictus2]

The Catolic Church did not give us the bible. God did. How pre sumptuous to say otherwise.

And How did God do that? Did Jesus Christ write the Gospels or the Epistles?

Did God come down and decided which books floating around that time were to be part of the Canon?

Very few Catholics can admit to the seriousness of the sin that caused others to leave her.

Very few protestants admit to the pride and utter painrful ignorance that caused them to leave the Catholic Chruch. Once they admitted these to themselves, they came back home.

 

[Mannyfit75]

The Catolic Church did not give us the bible. God did. How pre sumptuous to say otherwise.

Very few Catholics can admit to the seriousness of the sin that caused others to leave her.

God guided the Church who gave us the Bible much like the doctrine of the Trinity (which is no where found in the Bible). Trinity is mainly based interpretation of God as a Triune God. The Early Church disagree which book was consider part of Scripture. There were many Gospels. It was not until local Synods in the Fourth Century, that canonized the Books are inspired. The Council of Carthage 392 AD and Council of Hippo in 396 AD. These Churches back then are Catholic Churches.

The Chapter and Verses was point together by a religious monks also the order of the Books in the Bible were put together by Church. How do know that Genesis is the first book? why shouldn’t we put the Five Books of Moses there first? Or why is Matthew Gospel listed as the first Gospel in the order of the Gospels?

It is a historical FACT that the Catholic Church gave us Bible. You have to prove from history that it wasn’t.

 

[Bill_Pick]

You are playing true to your name here.

Point 1: The Bible, inquisition, sex abuse are not mututally inclusive items that means if you take one you have to take the others.

Point 2: Yes we did give you the Bible, yes there was an inquisition, yes there was sexual abuse in the church.

Your error is in thinking we are denying the the latter two.

But your understanding of the inquisition is probably extremely flawed, and the sexual abuse scandal is not limited to the Catholic church but is as rampant (probably even more so) in Protestant churches.

So as an OP your post does not make one bit of sense.

The priest are men just like you and me men make errors look at Our Lord He picked 12 and one was a error,