Why don't you think it's not obvious to Protestants that their bible is not the bible that contains the fullness of the inspired written Word of God?

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholic1seeks
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
clmowry said:
Your “facts” being based on a belief that the Jews get to define the Old Testament Cannon, right?

So if they decided today that only the Pentateuch is scripture then you would be oliged to change your cannon.

Correct?
Click to expand...
You folks seem to have an inability to read ENGLISH, maybe we need to try another language?

*35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous **Abel **unto the blood of **Zacharias *son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. (Mt 23:35)

These are not my words or my interpretation-these are your Saviours words!

Abel=Genesis
Zacharias=2Chronicles

Hebrew Bible=Genesis-2Chronicles (39 books-NO APOCRYPHA)

FACT, FACT, FACT…FACT!!!
 
drbible1611 said:
There was never a separation. God has ALWAYS had a remnant of true Bible believers since the death, burial and resurrection of Christ.
Click to expand...
Of course, it doesn’t actually say this in the bible…It seems you have your own traditions of men!
A protestant is someone who was ONCE a Roman Catholic then got saved and came out of the ‘mother’ church and started to PROTEST.
Click to expand...
Another man-made tradition. Again, not in the bible.
I therefore stand guilty of being a Protestant.
Click to expand...
And, on that day when you face Christ in the judgment seat, just shout “Hey, Jesus, I did it MY way!!!”

Does obedience have anything to do with following Christ?
 
Church_Militant said:
If that is the basis for your argument then you must not feel that your case is convincing enough.Are you trying to assert that they did so for the New Testament canon? Naturally, that would be ludicrous.

Here I suppose you will try to tell me that the Dead Sea Scrolls do not contain Hebrew copies of the Deuterocanon?I would, but it’s a specious argument because what the KJB contains is not relevant to the issue of of the OT canon. You may assert that you use a 1611 KJV but I have used one and what most modern n-Cs have today is not a 1611 edition. The 1611 contained the Deuterocanon until the mid 1800s when some Bible society decided to remove them, apparently for the sake of reducing production costs. My problem with that is that they had no authority to abridge the Word of God in that way, yet many modern n-Cs use that abridged canon, :bible1: I look forward to your presentation of it. Then we’ll see if it supports your interpretation. I never deny what Our Lord says. I do however generally take issue with many of the myriad n-C interpretations of whatever passages may be presented. By all means enlighten me though…😃 :rolleyes:You may be, that is not my place to judge, and I entrust such things to Our lord where they rightly belong. There is, of course, still time for you to repent.:whistle:There is apparently hope for you. This is a fine expression of Catholic belief.:thumbsup:Pax Domini sit semper vobisum.
Click to expand...
You obviously have not read my previous posts neither have you read the Scripture verses quoted.

The Apocrypha was NEVER accepted as INSPIRED! It Was placed between the OT and NT! .
 
Filius99993 said:
Ultimately, they just don’t want to follow the Church because they want to have their own interpretation of the Bible, and thus they want to make up their own rules, too. So to justify that, they claim that Catholics made up all of our rules and books and the like. You can always find people who take literal interpretations of Revelation who don’t have a clue what Maccabees is.
Click to expand...
Now this is a joke.

The Roman Catholic Church is the greatest PRIVATE INTERPRETER of Scripture known to mankind!
 
drbible1611 said:
You folks seem to have an inability to read ENGLISH, maybe we need to try another language?

*35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous **Abel ***unto the blood of **Zacharias **son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. (Mt 23:35)

These are not my words or my interpretation-these are your Saviours words!

Abel=Genesis
Zacharias=2Chronicles

Hebrew Bible=Genesis-2Chronicles (39 books-NO APOCRYPHA)

FACT, FACT, FACT…FACT!!!
Click to expand...
So you are trying to define the Old Testament Canon as being between the time of the first murder and the time the last prophet was killed?

If that is the case, then you have some problems. Malachi, Zechariah, Jonah, and many of the other minor prophets.

I do have a question. It may have been asked already but I have not read the whole thread. Who has the authority to determine the Canon of the Bible? Both the Old and New Testaments? Surely God does not want chaos in this area.
 
drbible1611 said:
Now this is a joke.

The Roman Catholic Church is the greatest PRIVATE INTERPRETER of Scripture known to mankind!
Click to expand...
Ahem, the Church was what introduced the Bible to humanity… Matthew, Peter, John, Luke… they were all Catholic. The word “Catholic” just wasn’t around to determine who was an apostate or not at that point in time. (Late 2nd century, I believe…)

We are His Church. We’ve got the Pentecost, which gave the Church the Holy Spirit the divine authority to, well, have authority. No other church has that right.
 
drbible1611 said:
Now this is a joke.

The Roman Catholic Church is the greatest PRIVATE INTERPRETER of Scripture known to mankind!
Click to expand...
Yes! 👍 Amen! 👍 👍 Alleluia! 👍 👍 👍 On authority from Christ through His Apostles. Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!

Hang around and learn from the One True Church! Sadly, you are the freshman telling the Professor Emeritus all about his area of expertise.
 
Teflon93 said:
I will certainly question your knowledge of Scripture, given your reticence in responding to the passages I’ve posted.

Surely, as a former Catholic, you’ve come across John 6?
Click to expand...
Man, you really have a hang up on John 6.

OK, start a ‘John 6’ thread and let the battle commence!
 
Pixie_Dust said:
The early Christians were Catholic. There weren’t any Presbyterians, Baptists, Nazarenes (well, except for the residents of Nazareth ;)), Lutherans, Methodists or non-denominationals holding councils back then, just Catholics. 👍
Click to expand...
Really?

I thought Peter, John, James, Matthew etc and Paul were JEWS. You know circumcised, pork abstaining, bearded, sabbath temple worshippers. Doesn’t sound very ROMAN CATHOLIC to me!

Maybe you can quote the verse where Christ said “I will build my ROMAN CATHOLIC Church…”
 
Teflon93 said:
We know why the KJV excluded them—because they support the Mass, prayers to the saints, sanctification, etc.

That wasn’t the Holy Spirit dictating, but the English Crown.
Click to expand...
Well, that being the case you have just called Jesus Christ a liar just like the Council of Trent did!

Is that a mortal or venial sin:confused: ?
 
Pixie_Dust said:
Please share with us all the NT quotations of the OT from the KJV that are exactly word-for-word.

Was Paul doubting the inspiration of his writings when he wrote that he didn’t remember how many people he’d baptized? Should we remove that epistle from the Bible?

They were canonized long before Trent, sorry. The NT supports the Mass, prayers of the saints in Heaven who are alive, not dead; and the sinlessness - I presume you mean Mary here. Just because you don’t see it doesn’t mean it’s not there.
Click to expand...
No, the Catholic interpretation of certain passages ‘supports’ those false teachings.
 
po18guy said:
You’re a Mormon then? The Great Apostasy theory? Your church is the restoration?
Click to expand...
Now I am offended.

Why would you call me a Mormon?

If what I have been saying makes me a Mormon then I guess Jesus, Paul, Peter and Jude were also Mormons for they warned about apostacy, false prophets and teachers even FALSE CHRISTS (Edited)
 
drbible1611 said:
Man, you really have a hang up on John 6.
Click to expand...
The part of the bible that Paul believed, but you don’t.

OK, start a ‘John 6’ thread and let the battle commence!Why? We believe it. You think Jesus was joking. There’s nothing to discuss. We’ll pray for you. Many of us used to believe just as you do. But, the Holy Spirit cannot be resisted, as we found out.

Christ’s peace.
 
drbible1611 said:
Really?

I thought Peter, John, James, Matthew etc and Paul were JEWS. You know circumcised, pork abstaining, bearded, sabbath temple worshippers. Doesn’t sound very ROMAN CATHOLIC to me!

Maybe you can quote the verse where Christ said “I will build my ROMAN CATHOLIC Church…”
Click to expand...
I didn’t say ROMAN Catholic, I said Catholic. The Latin (Roman) Church is but one of 23 Catholic Rites all in communion.

They were Jews, then became the first Catholic Christians of the Catholic Church - the Greek says so in Acts 9:31 ekklesia kataholos.
 
drbible1611 said:
That’s fine by me but let me warn you that I was a baptised, confirmed, catechized, Mass attending and Priest confessing RC for forty years…So go ahead and accuse me of not knowing what the Catholic Church teaches
Click to expand...
You told Teflon93 that Catholics did not believe the Bible and bore false witness against the Church. Whether you have been Catholic for 1 day or 100 years, if you think that, then no, you don’t know Catholic teaching.
 
drbible1611 said:
Now I am offended. Why would you call me a Mormon?
Click to expand...
The LDS church usually claims to be the resurrection of the one true church, the restoration of the true church, or the remnant. That is why. Why would you be offended? Every one I have met has been sincere in putting forth their belief that the church fell into decay and had to be restored at some point. They are also KJV bible believers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top