What are you protesting?

[Namesake]

do you even know what you are saying?

Nope…

 

[Benu2007]

Nothing new here. You may twist these teachings to your own end but there’s nothing new here unless one has never read the Gospels at all except, of course, for one of your assertions. Demonstrate from Romans 3:27-31 what exactly you mean. Let’s see if you really do understand the Scriptures that you say you read. Here’s your chance.

I’ll make it easy on you. I’ll put the passage here straight from your Calvinist translation of the Bible.

27Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.

28Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
29Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:
30Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith. 31Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

By the way, I do quite realize that the Bible is a Catholic book and that this version isn’t perfect but I am willing to let you use it and I am even willing to let you use a version that is not perfect. I do also realize that you skipped vs. 31 in your boasting. I think it only fair that you use the scriptures in context. Go get 'em, Tiger.

CDL

BTW Do you expect to see the Angel Gabriel in hell?

I didn’t skip verse 31. I just thought it was more relavant for fnext point, so I included it there. That it when we have faith we will natural do what it right because we love God.

No translation is perfect although I do think some are better than others. It is always good to compare. Here is the translation I like to use. The New Living Translation (NLT). It is easy to read and also seems to be fairly accurate in bringing out the point.

Here is what the NLT says for Romans 3:27-31

27 Can we boast, then, that we have done anything to be accepted by God? No, because our acquittal is not based on obeying the law. It is based on faith. 28 So we are made right with God through faith and not by obeying the law.

29 After all, is God the God of the Jews only? Isn’t he also the God of the Gentiles? Of course he is. 30 There is only one God, and he makes people right with himself only by faith, whether they are Jews or Gentiles.[j] 31 Well then, if we emphasize faith, does this mean that we can forget about the law? Of course not! In fact, only when we have faith do we truly fulfill the law.

My interpretation, although there is little interpretation needed since it’s in pretty clear English:

We are made right with God by putting our faith in Christ’s sacrifice. This is because we can’t be made write with God by obeying the law because that would mean never sinning - which we all have done. So we are already doomed by the law. Since we are made right by faith only there there is nothing that we could have done to earn it - it’s a gift. This gift is for everyone. However this does not mean that we can just say we have faith in Christ and then do whatever we want. When we truly have faith in God then we love Him, we are thankful and greatful for His sacrifice. He suffered a horrible death for our sins and He hates sin. So if we do love Him why would we keep on sinning? So if we are continuing to walk in a life of sin then its obvious that we don’t really care about God and His sacrifice for us. That is why it says “only when we have faith do we truly obey the law”

The big point I am trying to make is that it is Christ’s death that took our punishment. But that doesn’t mean that because He died everyone will be saved and no one is going to Hell. We have to have faith in Him. Our works show that we have faith in Him. But righteousness is not gained by doing works. It’s not that the more works we do the more our sin gets wiped away and we get closer to being totally righteous. If it was then we could boast.

Would you be able to give me your interpretation of the above passage. And then below your interpretation let me know what you think of what I have said about it.

Thanx

Gabriel will not we be in Hell. If you look it other versions it is clear that he was simply greating her. Other versions even just say “greetings” instead of hail.

28 Gabriel appeared to her and said, “Greetings, favored woman! The Lord is with you![a]” (NLT)

28The angel went to her and said, “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.” (NIV)

28And coming in, he said to her, “Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you.” (NASB)

28And he came to her and said, Hail, O favored one [a]endued with grace]! The Lord is with you! **Blessed (favored of God) are you before all other women! (Amplified Bible)

28And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. (KJV)

28And he came to her and said, “Greetings,(A) O favored one,(B) the Lord is with you!”[a] (ESV)

28The angel greeted Mary and said, “You are truly blessed! The Lord is with you.” (CEV)

28 And having come in, the angel said to her, “Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you; blessed are you among women!” (NKJV)

28 The angel came to her and said, “Greetings! The Lord has blessed you and is with you.” (NCV)

28 And he came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favored, the Lord is with thee. (ASV)

28And the messenger having come in unto her, said, `Hail, favoured one, the Lord [is] with thee; blessed [art] thou among women;’ (YLT)

Just by looking at these versions it seems that it’s the old Enblish Bibles that use “hail” where the modern English use “greetings” Saying hail was just simply an old English way of saying greatings**

 

[Benu2007]

That is impossible for you to do. the Bible has been wiht the catholics for 2000 years; and you, how long have you been around? quit believing that what is written in the Bible is referring directly to, it is not. Jesus chose 12 apostles to build His Church the catholic church. this church is the one with authority to interpret its content and not you.
:knight2:

Was Paul one of the 12 apostles? Yet why was he the apostle to the Gentiles?

The Bible has not been with Catholics for 2000 years. In fact the Catholic church didn’t even come up with the set of books it has for its bible today until the 1500s. Some of the books in it were even said not to be scripture by church fathers such as Athanasius. If the Catholic church is the one and only inspired church of God then why did it take 1500 years to figure out what the right books were and disagree with what the early Catholics said?

 

[Benu2007]

Your objection raised that if Mary were without sin, she would be equal to God. In the beginning, God created Adam, Eve, and the angels without sin, but none were equal to God. Most of the angels never sinned, and all souls in heaven are without sin. This does not detract from the glory of God, but manifests it by the work he has done in sanctifying his creation. Sinning does not make one human. On the contrary, it is when man is without sin that he is most fully what God intends him to be.

worth noting that 1 Chronicles 15:14 records that the persons who bore the ark were to be sanctified. There would be no sense in sanctifying men who carried a box, and not sanctifying the womb who carried God himself! After all, wisdom will not dwell “in a body under debt of sin” (Wis. 1:4 NAB).

After all, if Mary is immaculately conceived, then it would follow that she would not suffer the corruption in the grave, which is a consequence of sin [Gen. 3:17, 19].

There is so much to reply to here but I will start with this section. First of all God created Adam Eve. They had no human parents. When they sinned, sin entered the world. Sin was then passed on to their children through them, then their children passed it on and so forth. So basically, humans pass on sin to their children. Do you agree with that? Even Enoch and Elijah were born in sin but they were made right with God because of their faith (Hebrews 11:5-6).

So considering Mary had human parents we cannot say that she wasn’t born in sin. Jesus was born of the Spirit. Therefore He inherited the Spirits sinless nature. Thats the only way he could not have been born in sin. So by you saying Mary was born outside of sin you are saying that she was born of the Spirit too. Making her the daughter of God in the same way that Christ was the Son of God.
You use a capital “H” for “Her” when talking about Mary. Capitals are used to show divinity. The bible does not use Capitals in the same way for Mary.

The people carrying the ark had to sanctified because the Spirit of God dwelt in it. If the Spirit of God was not there then it was just a box. Is Christ still in Mary’s womb?

 

[rtconstant]

Was Paul one of the 12 apostles? Yet why was he the apostle to the Gentiles?

The Bible has not been with Catholics for 2000 years. In fact the Catholic church didn’t even come up with the set of books it has for its bible today until the 1500s. Some of the books in it were even said not to be scripture by church fathers such as Athanasius. If the Catholic church is the one and only inspired church of God then why did it take 1500 years to figure out what the right books were and disagree with what the early Catholics said?

Some corrections here. Here are the list of Councils that approved the list of the Canon notice no deviation.

Council of Rome (382)
Local church council under the authority of Pope Damasus, (366-384) gave a complete list of canonical books of the OT and NT which is identical with the list later approved by the Council of Trent.
Council of Hippo (393)
Local North African Church council in union with and under the authority of the Bishop of Rome approved a list of OT and NT canon (same as later approved by the Council of Trent)
Council of Carthage (397)
Local North African Church council in union with and under the authority of the Bishop of Rome approved a list of OT and NT canon (same as later approved by the Council of Trent)
Pope Innocent I, Bishop of Rome, 401-417 (405)
Responded to a request by Exuperius, Bishop of Toulouse, with a list of canonical books of Scripture; this list was the same as later approved by the Council of Trent.
Council of Carthage (419)
Local North African Church council in union with and under the authority of the Bishop of Rome approved a list of OT and NT canon (same as later approved by the Council of Trent)
Council of Florence, an ecumenical council (1441)
Complete list of OT and NT canon was drawn up; this list later adopted by the Fathers of the Council of Trent
Council of Trent, an ecumenical council called to respond to the heresy of the Reformers (1545-1563)
The canon of OT and NT received final definitions: 46 books in the OT; 27 in the NT; “Henceforth the books of the OT and the NT, protocanonical and deuterocanonical alike, in their entirety and with all their parts, comprise the canon and are held to be of equal authority.” The ancient Vulgate edition of the Bible was called the authoritative edition of the Bible.

Trent was forced to dogmatically declare the Canon because the Protestants were removing books so the faithful needed guidance to understand the difference between the Canon and the new Protestant innovations.

Also its OK that there were a couple of people with differing opinions on the Canon. What matters is when the Church spoke they obeyed.

 

[Benu2007]

Some corrections here. Here are the list of Councils that approved the list of the Canon notice no deviation.

Trent was forced to dogmatically declare the Canon because the Protestants were removing books so the faithful needed guidance to understand the difference between the Canon and the new Protestant innovations.

Also its OK that there were a couple of people with differing opinions on the Canon. What matters is when the Church spoke they obeyed.

To say that the church spoke and they obeyed is not right and this is how false doctrines come about in the first place. Look what would have happened if Athanasius had not spoken about against Arianism. He didn’t conform to the church was saying, he stuck by scripture. In the end he was nearly the only one saying that Christ and God were One and the same. And he finally one out in the end. Not the popular church belief.

But in talking about the power the Pope has.

Here’s a portion of a Catholic website I came across.

"For the first 300 years of Christianity, there was no Bible as we know it today. Christians had the Old Testament Septuagint, and literally hundreds of other books from which to choose. The Catholic Church realized early on that she had to decide which of these books were inspired and which ones weren’t. The debates raged between theologians, Bishops, and Church Fathers, for several centuries as to which books were inspired and which ones weren’t. In the meantime, several Church Councils or Synods, were convened to deal with the matter, notably, Rome in 382, Hippo in 393, and Carthage in 397 and 419. The debates sometimes became bitter on both sides. One of the most famous was between St. Jerome, who felt the seven books were not canonical, and St. Augustine who said they were. Protestants who write about this will invariably mention St. Jerome and his opposition, and conveniently omit the support of St. Augustine. I must point out here that Church Father’s writings are not infallible statements, and their arguments are merely reflections of their own private opinions. When some say St. Jerome was against the inclusion of the seven books, they are merely showing his personal opinion of them. Everyone is entitled to his own opinion. However, A PERSONS PRIVATE OPINION DOES NOT CHANGE THE TRUTH AT ALL. There are always three sides to every story, this side, that side, and the side of truth. Whether Jerome’s position, or Augustine’s position was the correct position, had to be settled by a third party, and that third party was the Catholic Church.

---

Now the story had a dramatic change, as the Pope stepped in to settle the matter. In concurrence with the opinion of St. Augustine, and being prompted by the Holy Spirit, Pope St. Damasus I, at the Council of Rome in 382, issued a decree appropriately called, “The Decree of Damasus”, in which he listed the canonical books of both the Old and New Testaments. He then asked St. Jerome to use this canon and to write a new Bible translation which included an Old Testament of 46 books, which were all in the Septuagint, and a New Testament of 27 books.
ROME HAD SPOKEN, THE ISSUE WAS SETTLED.

You cannot say that because the Pope said it must be fact. This is one of the biggest problems that Protestants have with Catholicism - you accept everything the Pope says. In the above debate it was Jerome, a scholar, versus Augustine, the Emperor. Who do think the Pope was going to side with? Jerome’s arguments that the apocrypha is never quoted by anyone in the New Testament didn’t seem to matter. Athanasius also disagreed with the Apocrypha being scripture.

Jesus also says in Luke 11:51 “from the blood of Abel to Zachariah” Abel was killed in Genesis and Zacharaih was killed in Chronicals. The last book written in the Hebrew Old Testament. The apocrypha is missed out as the books were written after this time.

But the big problem is that Catholics fully believe that the Pope has total Authority on everything. Some of the things he has said has been stupid. For example. He issued a statement not to long ago saying that those who made a pilgrimage to Lourdes would have days reduced in Purgatory. This is nonsense.

 

[wisdomseeker]

What Benu2007 is saying is this: the Our Fathers are wrong, the catholic church is wrong, follow me for i have the truth. i can interpret the Bible correctly. it is amazing! how does he do it without the Tradition held by catholics only.

 

[wisdomseeker]

This one is for BENU 2007.

St. Thomas Aquinas says, “The real character of rank heresy consists in lack of submission to the divine teaching authority in the head of the Church.”

:bowdown2: :knight2:

 

[GregoryPalamas]

I didn’t skip verse 31. I just thought it was more relavant for fnext point, so I included it there. That it when we have faith we will natural do what it right because we love God.

No translation is perfect although I do think some are better than others. It is always good to compare. Here is the translation I like to use. The New Living Translation (NLT). It is easy to read and also seems to be fairly accurate in bringing out the point.

Here is what the NLT says for Romans 3:27-31

27 Can we boast, then, that we have done anything to be accepted by God? No, because our acquittal is not based on obeying the law. It is based on faith. 28 So we are made right with God through faith and not by obeying the law.

29 After all, is God the God of the Jews only? Isn’t he also the God of the Gentiles? Of course he is. 30 There is only one God, and he makes people right with himself only by faith, whether they are Jews or Gentiles.[j] 31 Well then, if we emphasize faith, does this mean that we can forget about the law? Of course not! In fact, only when we have faith do we truly fulfill the law.

My interpretation, although there is little interpretation needed since it’s in pretty clear English:

We are made right with God by putting our faith in Christ’s sacrifice. This is because we can’t be made write with God by obeying the law because that would mean never sinning - which we all have done. So we are already doomed by the law. Since we are made right by faith only there there is nothing that we could have done to earn it - it’s a gift. This gift is for everyone. However this does not mean that we can just say we have faith in Christ and then do whatever we want. When we truly have faith in God then we love Him, we are thankful and greatful for His sacrifice. He suffered a horrible death for our sins and He hates sin. So if we do love Him why would we keep on sinning? So if we are continuing to walk in a life of sin then its obvious that we don’t really care about God and His sacrifice for us. That is why it says “only when we have faith do we truly obey the law”

The big point I am trying to make is that it is Christ’s death that took our punishment. But that doesn’t mean that because He died everyone will be saved and no one is going to Hell. We have to have faith in Him. Our works show that we have faith in Him. But righteousness is not gained by doing works. It’s not that the more works we do the more our sin gets wiped away and we get closer to being totally righteous. If it was then we could boast.

Would you be able to give me your interpretation of the above passage. And then below your interpretation let me know what you think of what I have said about it.

Thanx

Gabriel will not we be in Hell. If you look it other versions it is clear that he was simply greating her. Other versions even just say “greetings” instead of hail.

28 Gabriel appeared to her and said, “Greetings, favored woman! The Lord is with you![a]” (NLT)

28The angel went to her and said, “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.” (NIV)

28And coming in, he said to her, “Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you.” (NASB)

28And he came to her and said, Hail, O favored one [a]endued with grace]! The Lord is with you! **Blessed (favored of God) are you before all other women! (Amplified Bible)

28And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. (KJV)

28And he came to her and said, “Greetings,(A) O favored one,(B) the Lord is with you!”[a] (ESV)

28The angel greeted Mary and said, “You are truly blessed! The Lord is with you.” (CEV)

28 And having come in, the angel said to her, “Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you; blessed are you among women!” (NKJV)

28 The angel came to her and said, “Greetings! The Lord has blessed you and is with you.” (NCV)

28 And he came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favored, the Lord is with thee. (ASV)

28And the messenger having come in unto her, said, `Hail, favoured one, the Lord [is] with thee; blessed [art] thou among women;’ (YLT)

Just by looking at these versions it seems that it’s the old Enblish Bibles that use “hail” where the modern English use “greetings” Saying hail was just simply an old English way of saying greatings**

The Living Bible is a paraphrase. No wonder you are so easily confused. It has even more of an axe to grind than the KJV. The passage from St. Paul’s hand has very little to do with what you have said. He is contrasting following the Mosaic law with following Christ. St. Paul is simply continuing the discussion he began in Chapter 1. Moreover he simply discusses the same thing Jesus discussed with the Pharisees.

If you knew Greek you would know that no archangel ever greeted anyone like he greeted Mary.

The real problem is that you come here boasting all sorts of knowledge and condemning us for having little understanding. The truth is quite otherwise. As they say, “you have come to a gunfight with only a jackknife.” Too bad.

CDL

 

[wisdomseeker]

Was Paul one of the 12 apostles? Yet why was he the apostle to the Gentiles?

The Bible has not been with Catholics for 2000 years. In fact the Catholic church didn’t even come up with the set of books it has for its bible today until the 1500s. Some of the books in it were even said not to be scripture by church fathers such as Athanasius. If the Catholic church is the one and only inspired church of God then why did it take 1500 years to figure out what the right books were and disagree with what the early Catholics said?

Where were the Sacred Scriptures when Tyndale and his gangs broke through the catholic church windows and stole (literaly stole) the Scriptures? where were these Scriptures Benu2007? if not with catholics.

 

[Benu2007]

The Living Bible is a paraphrase. No wonder you are so easily confused. It has even more of an axe to grind than the KJV. The passage from St. Paul’s hand has very little to do with what you have said. He is contrasting following the Mosaic law with following Christ. St. Paul is simply continuing the discussion he began in Chapter 1. Moreover he simply discusses the same thing Jesus discussed with the Pharisees.

If you knew Greek you would know that no archangel ever greeted anyone like he greeted Mary.

The real problem is that you come here boasting all sorts of knowledge and condemning us for having little understanding. The truth is quite otherwise. As they say, “you have come to a gunfight with only a jackknife.” Too bad.

CDL

If you would like to know the New Living Translation is not a paraphrased bible. The Message is a paraphrase bible. I would never use that. Excluding paraphrase bibles there are three main types. Word-for-word translations, meaining-for-meaning, and a mixture of the two. Both have advantages and disadvantages. The word-for-word types such as the New King James Version are more accurate yes, but they are much harder to follow because they don’t use English in the same way we do today and you miss points it makes. Meaning-for-meaning are good because they are easier to follow. However sometimes accuracy can be lost, this is why it is important to compare other translations. When comparing the NLT with the NKJV you can see that nothing new is added. The main differences are things like word order and sometimes different words may be used to subsitute another to make a verse clearer. But the meaning itself is not changed.

Lets compare the KJV, that you gave me with the NLT. The KJV is on the top, and the NLT is on the bottom. Each verse is compared in Romans 3:27-31.

27Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
27 Can we boast, then, that we have done anything to be accepted by God? No, because our acquittal is not based on obeying the law. It is based on faith.

28Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
28 So we are made right with God through faith and not by obeying the law.

29Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:
29 After all, is God the God of the Jews only? Isn’t he also the God of the Gentiles? Of course he is.

30Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.
30 There is only one God, and he makes people right with himself only by faith, whether they are Jews or Gentiles.

31Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.
31 Well then, if we emphasize faith, does this mean that we can forget about the law? Of course not! In fact, only when we have faith do we truly fulfill the law.

Verse 27 has a little more in the NLT, but is the meaning any different?
Verse 30. The NLT says only by faith whereas the KJV omits only. However because it mentions nothing else other than faith it is strongly implied that it is only by faith. So the meaning isn’t different.
Verse 31 is longer in the NLT. However does it really say anything different? Plus it brings out the point much better and clearer.
Verses 28 and 29 are pretty much identical.

What I said was this:
We are justified by faith, not by simply trying to keep the law (27-28)
This is for both Jews and Gentiles (29-30)
When we truly have faith we naturally obey the law (31)

How is this not what Paul was writing? You simply said he was contrasting the Jewish law with the Christian faith. I showed how he was contrasting it. You’re just arguing for the sake of arguing.

If you want to see a paraphrased bible then look at what the Message says for this passage. I do not recomend the Message by the way.

27-28So where does that leave our proud Jewish insider claims and counter-claims? Canceled? Yes, canceled. What we’ve learned is this: God does not respond to what we do; we respond to what God does. We’ve finally figured it out. Our lives get in step with God and all others by letting him set the pace, not by proudly or anxiously trying to run the parade.

29-30And where does that leave our proud Jewish claim of having a corner on God? Also canceled. God is the God of outsider non-Jews as well as insider Jews. How could it be otherwise since there is only one God? God sets right all who welcome his action and enter into it, both those who follow our religious system and those who have never heard of our religion.

31But by shifting our focus from what we do to what God does, don’t we cancel out all our careful keeping of the rules and ways God commanded? Not at all. What happens, in fact, is that by putting that entire way of life in its proper place, we confirm it.

Although it is saying the same kind of thing, it’s clearly not what the orignial passage said.

 

[Benu2007]

If you knew Greek you would know that no archangel ever greeted anyone like he greeted Mary.

The real problem is that you come here boasting all sorts of knowledge and condemning us for having little understanding. The truth is quite otherwise. As they say, “you have come to a gunfight with only a jackknife.” Too bad.

CDL

You cannot say that if I knew greek then I would know that no archangel ever greeted anyone like he greeted Mary. Archangels are barely mentioned in the bible. Daniel, Mary and John the Baptist’s father are the only ones to talk to Gabriel. There were a few who talked to the angel of the Lord, such as Moses, Abraham, Gideon, Balam. And look at the way he greets Gideon. Judges 6:12 The angel of the Lord appeared to him and said, “Mighty hero, the Lord is with you!” That’s a reasonable kind of greeting. Better than what Moses or Abraham got. Does that mean he was greater than Moses and Abraham?
Also look at what Jesus says about John the Baptist in Matthew 11:11 “I tell you the truth, of all who have ever lived, none is greater than John the Baptist. Yet even the least person in the Kingdom of Heaven is greater than he is!"
Jesus Himself says John the Baptist is greater than Mary. You cannot say that Jesus was saying that John the Baptist was greater than Himself because look at what John the Baptist says about Jesus in John 1:27 "Though his ministry follows mine, I’m not even worthy to be his slave and untie the straps of his sandal.”
Nothing is said about Mary.

You can say all the accusations you like about me and enjoy the fact that I am outnumbered by about 4-1 in this forum. But I have been using scripture to back up everything I say on doctrine. It has not been taken out of context and you haven’t been able to give me proof that I have. You have told me very little of what you believe, and what scripture you use to back it up with. It seems to me that you don’t read the bible often because you know you need others to interpret it for you, those with “better knowledge”. If you read the bible for yourself you will find that you don’t need to look at the interpretation of those higher up in the church. Instead you should listen to them but be critical and test everything that is said by using scripture.

 

[Benu2007]

Where were the Sacred Scriptures when Tyndale and his gangs broke through the catholic church windows and stole (literaly stole) the Scriptures? where were these Scriptures Benu2007? if not with catholics.

How can you steal the Scriptures? Tyndale wanted everyone to be able to read the scriptures not just those who could speak Latin. No one has a monopoly on scripture. How can you possible accuse Tyndale of doing something wrong here?

 

[wisdomseeker]

How can you steal the Scriptures? Tyndale wanted everyone to be able to read the scriptures not just those who could speak Latin. No one has a monopoly on scripture. How can you possible accuse Tyndale of doing something wrong here?

Monopoly? are you serious? Is Our God on the business of confusion? do you really believe that Our God would tell everyone of us: get a Bible each one of you and learn for yourselves? or did He say I will build a Church? why do you think He left a Church? to instruct us and to teach us,One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church. where did get the idea that God would have us using His words against His own Church? try to figure this one out?

:bowdown2: :knight2:

 

[Benu2007]

Monopoly? are you serious? Is Our God on the business of confusion? do you really believe that Our God would tell everyone of us: get a Bible each one of you and learn for yourselves? or did He say I will build a Church? why do you think He left a Church? to instruct us and to teach us,One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church. where did get the idea that God would have us using His words against His own Church? try to figure this one out?

:bowdown2: :knight2:

What are you talking about??? Do you read scripture? Have you not read 1 Thessalonians 5:19-22?
19 Do not stifle the Holy Spirit. 20 Do not scoff at prophecies, 21 but test everything that is said. Hold on to what is good. 22 Stay away from every kind of evil.

It says we shouldn’t just go out and mock but test everything that is said. If someone prophesies something then we should wait and see if what they are saying comes to past. However if someone is teaching you something how else do we test them apart from using the scriptures. The scriptures are God’s word. What better place to go?

Acts 17:11-12 backs this up when the people examined what the apostle Paul was saying. They didn’t just believe what he said but tested him with scripture.

11 And the people of Berea were more open-minded than those in Thessalonica, and they listened eagerly to Paul’s message. They searched the Scriptures day after day to see if Paul and Silas were teaching the truth. 12 As a result, many Jews believed, as did many of the prominent Greek women and men.

How can you possible say that God wouldn’t want His word to be read by all. People can distort things, just like they did in the first century. So we should be reading scripture for ourselves.

Don’t you see? The Church is built on the words of God. If the God’s word is in conflict with what the church says than the church isn’t really the church of God, it’s the church of man. The Church will know God’s will because they belong to them and it will not conflict with scripture.

 

[GregoryPalamas]

How can you steal the Scriptures? Tyndale wanted everyone to be able to read the scriptures not just those who could speak Latin. No one has a monopoly on scripture. How can you possible accuse Tyndale of doing something wrong here?

Numerous translations already existed.

CDL

 

[rtconstant]

To say that the church spoke and they obeyed is not right and this is how false doctrines come about in the first place. Look what would have happened if Athanasius had not spoken about against Arianism. He didn’t conform to the church was saying, he stuck by scripture. In the end he was nearly the only one saying that Christ and God were One and the same. And he finally one out in the end. Not the popular church belief.

Popular belief did not win out. The Council declared and it was so.

"For the first 300 years of Christianity, there was no Bible as we know it today. Christians had the Old Testament Septuagint, and literally hundreds of other books from which to choose. The Catholic Church realized early on that she had to decide which of these books were inspired and which ones weren’t. The debates raged between theologians, Bishops, and Church Fathers, for several centuries as to which books were inspired and which ones weren’t. In the meantime, several Church Councils or Synods, were convened to deal with the matter, notably, Rome in 382, Hippo in 393, and Carthage in 397 and 419. The debates sometimes became bitter on both sides. One of the most famous was between St. Jerome, who felt the seven books were not canonical, and St. Augustine who said they were. Protestants who write about this will invariably mention St. Jerome and his opposition, and conveniently omit the support of St. Augustine. I must point out here that Church Father’s writings are not infallible statements, and their arguments are merely reflections of their own private opinions. When some say St. Jerome was against the inclusion of the seven books, they are merely showing his personal opinion of them. Everyone is entitled to his own opinion. However, A PERSONS PRIVATE OPINION DOES NOT CHANGE THE TRUTH AT ALL. There are always three sides to every story, this side, that side, and the side of truth. Whether Jerome’s position, or Augustine’s position was the correct position, had to be settled by a third party, and that third party was the Catholic Church.

---

Now the story had a dramatic change, as the Pope stepped in to settle the matter. In concurrence with the opinion of St. Augustine, and being prompted by the Holy Spirit, Pope St. Damasus I, at the Council of Rome in 382, issued a decree appropriately called, “The Decree of Damasus”, in which he listed the canonical books of both the Old and New Testaments. He then asked St. Jerome to use this canon and to write a new Bible translation which included an Old Testament of 46 books, which were all in the Septuagint, and a New Testament of 27 books.
ROME HAD SPOKEN, THE ISSUE WAS SETTLED.

You cannot say that because the Pope said it must be fact. This is one of the biggest problems that Protestants have with Catholicism - you accept everything the Pope says. In the above debate it was Jerome, a scholar, versus Augustine, the Emperor. Who do think the Pope was going to side with? Jerome’s arguments that the apocrypha is never quoted by anyone in the New Testament didn’t seem to matter. Athanasius also disagreed with the Apocrypha being scripture.

Yet when the Pope spoke it was fact. also another correction. St. Augustine was not an emperor. Notice as well that St. Jerome stated his outlook but when the Pope spoke he argued no further. An additional correction there are no apocryphal books in the Canon. The books you’re referring to are called the Deuterocanon and includes books from both the old and new testament. Also the argument that the lack of direct quote from a book in the NT as indicator of canonicity is a poor one. It would mean the removal of more than the Deuterocanon. You willing to give up Ruth and the Song of Songs?

Jesus also says in Luke 11:51 “from the blood of Abel to Zachariah” Abel was killed in Genesis and Zacharaih was killed in Chronicals. The last book written in the Hebrew Old Testament. The apocrypha is missed out as the books were written after this time.

This is called cherry picking. You’ve picked a verse out of context to use as evidence towards something it was not addressing in the first place. Jesus was speaking about how the pharisees appeared holy on the outside but in truth were like their ancestors who killed the prophets. He wasn’t defining the Canon.

Also the Deuterocanon was written in Hebrew we know this from the Dead Sea Scrolls and the time line of these books are intermixed amongst the others.

But the big problem is that Catholics fully believe that the Pope has total Authority on everything. Some of the things he has said has been stupid. For example. He issued a statement not to long ago saying that those who made a pilgrimage to Lourdes would have days reduced in Purgatory. This is nonsense.

Oh? I wasn’t aware that Oneness Pentecostals had doctrines regarding Purgatory. Do tell.

 

[Benu2007]

Numerous translations already existed.

CDL

Tyndale was the first person to translate the bible into English. The church also had a ban on translating into other languages. How is that Godly?

 

[Benu2007]

Oh? I wasn’t aware that Oneness Pentecostals had doctrines regarding Purgatory. Do tell.

I don’t really get what you mean by “Oneness Pentecostal”. Pentecostal is just a name. They’re on the fundalmentalist side. Catholics are more traditional. Call me a fundalmentalist if you want. The fact is I’m a Christian. I read the bible for myself but I tend to agree more with what the pentecostals say. There is no doctrine of Purgatory among pentecostal circles. I don’t see what you’re getting at. Please explain. Even if there was a belief there. It’s not biblical, so I won’t except it regardless of who tries to say it is.

 

[wisdomseeker]

St. Alphonsus (c. +1745): “The deeper a soul has fallen into sin, the more it is bound down by the powers of Hell…”