Books Outside the Bible

[Prayer Warrior]

Hi PW....

I "got this idea" from studying all the different Protestant beliefs. They all have variant views on salvation. That is why the Protestant Churches keep splintering. I would like to draw you attention to the Calvinist–Arminian debate as an example. The splintering of the Protestant churches include conflicting definitions of depravity, predestination, atonement and most pointedly justification.

I suspect you may be suggesting that they all believe in Salvation by Faith Alone?

Mary

Hi, Mary, I had to take a break from posting. My brain was starting to feel fried, and I had to get some work done.

When did you study the different Protestant beliefs? I'm just curious if you were ever involved in a Protestant church. That's not to say that you can't find out what Protestants believe if you weren't ever a Protestant.

I don't see the Calvinist-Arminian debate as a question about HOW a person is saved, but it's more about whether a Christian can lose his/her salvation. Both maintained that salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. Calvin came down on the side of predestination and "security of the believer." The Arminian belief is that a person exercises free will in response to God's grace and that a Christian can lose his salvation. Of course, I'm really oversimplifying both positions. Again, I believe this as a dichotomy. I've read scriptures that seem to support both beliefs, so this SEEMS to be a contradiction. Any time we try to put the whole truth into a box that our human minds can completely grasp, we miss some aspect of the truth.

From what I understand, many groups have splintered from the Roman Catholic Church. Of course, these groups are not accepted as Catholics by the Catholic Church. I just read about a group of priests who splintered from the Catholic Church so that they could get married.... They still consider themselves to be Catholic, but they reject the doctrine of celibacy. And I've read about others over the years. So, this whole idea that only Protestants denominations have splintered is inaccurate, and it doesn't prove that the Catholic Church is the one true church.

 

[CoreIssue]

WRONG again.

We call our Priests "Father" in the SAME way that Paul called himself "Father" to the Corinthians.
You don't have a Scriptural leg to stand on.

As for Mary having "Other" children - provide me with the verse and I'll concede defeat. . .

Call was responsible for leading them to Christ. A catholic moves across country and walks into a new catholic church they still have to call them father even though they never saw them before in their life.

You did even look into the link about Mary having kids.


Did Mary have any children other than Jesus? If so, how can she be the eternal virgin?
Mary had four other sons, Joseph, James, Jude, and Simon. Because of the virgin birth, Joseph was not the father of Jesus so these were the half brothers of Jesus. The last three mentioned are not to be confused with those who were disciples of Jesus by the same name. Here are some passages where the other sons of Mary by Joseph are mentioned (Matt. 12:46; 13:55; Mark 6:3; John 2:12; 7:3, 5, 10; Acts 1:14; 1 Cor. 9:5; Gal. 1:19).

Waiting for you to concede defeat.

 

[CoreIssue]

I don't see the Calvinist-Arminian debate as a question about HOW a person is saved, but it's more about whether a Christian can lose his/her salvation. Calvin came down on the side of "security of the believer." The Arminian belief is that a Christian can lose his salvation.

Agree. But please let me note calvinists deny freewill while Armenians do not.

Another large group, to which I belong, is Secure Armenianism (once saved always saved).

We believe people come to God in freewill, but once saved are predestined all the way to glorificaion, as stated in Romans 8.

Election is indeed a different topic.

 

[BobRyan]

Hello.

Now I see where you got your translation from: Disciplinary Decrees of the General Councils by H.J. Schroeder.

You are right. That is how Schroeder translated that sentence from LATIN to English.

And it is the Jesuits themselves that are promoting it.

Internet History Sourcebooks Project


CANON 3

Text. We excommunicate and anathematize every heresy that raises against the holy, orthodox and Catholic faith which we have above explained; condemning all heretics under whatever names they may be known, for while they have different faces they are nevertheless bound to each other by their tails, since in all of them vanity is a common element. Those condemned, being handed over to the secular rulers of their bailiffs, let them be abandoned, to be punished with due justice, clerics being first degraded from their orders. As to the property of the condemned, if they are laymen, let it be confiscated; if clerics, let it be applied to the churches from which they received revenues. But those who are only suspected, due consideration being given to the nature of the suspicion and the character of the person, unless they prove their innocence by a proper defense, let them be anathematized and avoided by all 1-intil they have made suitable satisfaction; but if they have been under excommunication for one year, then let them be condemned as heretics. Secular authorities, whatever office they may hold, shall be admonished and induced and if necessary compelled by ecclesiastical censure, that as they wish to be esteemed and numbered among the faithful, so for the defense of the faith they ought publicly to take an oath that they will strive in good faith and to the best of their ability to exterminate in the territories subject to their jurisdiction all heretics pointed out by the Church; so that whenever anyone shall have assumed authority, whether spiritual or temporal, let him be bound to confirm this decree by oath. But if a temporal ruler, after having been requested and admonished by the Church, should neglect to cleanse his territory of this heretical foulness, let him be excommunicated by the metropolitan and the other bishops of the province. If he refuses to make satisfaction within a year, let the matter be made known to the supreme pontiff, that he may declare the ruler's vassals absolved from their allegiance and may offer the territory to be ruled lay Catholics, who on the extermination of the heretics may possess it without hindrance and preserve it in the purity of faith; the right, however, of the chief ruler is to be respected as long as he offers no obstacle in this matter and permits freedom of action. The same law is to be observed in regard to those who have no chief rulers (that is, are independent). Catholics who have girded themselves with the cross for the extermination of the heretics, shall enjoy the indulgences and privileges granted to those who go in defense of the Holy Land.

We decree that those who give credence to the teachings of the heretics, as well as those who receive, defend, and patronize them, are excommunicated; and we firmly declare that after any one of them has been branded with excommunication, if he has deliberately failed to make satisfaction within a year, let him incur ipso jure the stigma of infamy and let him not be admitted to public offices or deliberations, and let him not take part in the election of others to such offices or use his right to give testimony in a court of law. Let him also be intestable, that he may not have the free exercise of making a will, and let him be deprived of the right of inheritance. Let no one be urged to give an account to him in any matter, but let him be urged to give an account to others. If perchance he be a judge, let his decisions have no force, nor let any cause be brought to his attention. If he be an advocate, let his assistance by no means be sought. If a notary, let the instruments drawn up by him be considered worthless, for, the author being condemned, let them enjoy a similar fate. In all similar cases we command that the same be observed. If, however, he be a cleric, let him be deposed from every office and benefice, that the greater the fault the graver may be the punishment inflicted.

If any refuse to avoid such after they have been ostracized by the Church, let them be excommunicated till they have made suitable satisfaction. Clerics shall not give the sacraments of the Church to such pestilential people, nor shall they presume to give them Christian burial, or to receive their alms or offerings; otherwise they shall be deprived of their office, to which they may not be restored without a special indult of the Apostolic See. Similarly, all regulars, on whom also this punishment may be imposed, let their privileges be nullified in that diocese in which they have presumed to perpetrate such excesses.

But since some, under "the appearance of godliness, but denying the power thereof," as the Apostle says (II Tim. 3: 5), arrogate to themselves the authority to preach, as the same Apostle says: "How shall they preach unless they be sent?" (Rom. 10:15), all those prohibited or not sent, who, without the authority of the Apostolic See or of the Catholic bishop of the locality, shall presume to usurp the office of preaching either publicly or privately, shall be excommunicated and unless they amend, and the sooner the better, they shall be visited with a further suitable penalty. We add, moreover, that every archbishop or bishop should himself or through his archdeacon or some other suitable persons, twice or at least once a year make the rounds of his diocese in which report has it that heretics dwell, and there compel three or more men of good character or, if it should be deemed advisable, the entire neighborhood, to swear that if anyone know of the presence there of heretics or others holding secret assemblies, or differing from the common way of the faithful in faith and morals, they will make them known to the bishop. The latter shall then call together before him those accused, who, if they do not purge themselves of the matter of which they are accused, or if after the rejection of their error they lapse into their former wickedness, shall be canonically punished. But if any of them by damnable obstinacy should disapprove of the oath and should perchance be unwilling to swear, from this very fact let them be regarded as heretics.

Originally, to exterminate something was to banish it or drive it away. And it is this meaning that can be found in the Latin origin of "exterminate." "Exterminate" comes from "exterminatus," the past participle of exterminare, meaning "to drive beyond the boundaries."

Which brings us "once again" to my question to you - which you have still not addressed.

in the text above - even your own Jesuits say the word is "exterminate" - and the text shows that they steal the property owned by those who differ with the RCC and are condemned as heretics, as well as "in your words" - driving them away - driving them out of the nation that is their home. Stealing their property and business and driving them out of the nation "is the best" face you have found to put on something that even Pope Benedict said results in the murder of over 25 million.

=========== question we still wait for an answer to
My main question is - how in the world does it occur to you to want to compare the Catholic method of dealing with differences/dissent/opposition with someone today who has a difference with Calvinist teaching at some point?

I don't understand your question. Could you rephrase it?
Curious Mary

When we read your quote above - we see you drawing attention to the way the RCC deals with those who differ -- when we read Lateran IV we see quite a different history in that regard. Curious as to why you are drawing our attention to this detail.

 

[Marymog]

Hi, Mary, I had to take a break from posting. My brain was starting to feel fried, and I had to get some work done.

When did you study the different Protestant beliefs? I'm just curious if you were ever involved in a Protestant church. That's not to say that you can't find out what Protestants believe if you weren't ever a Protestant.

I don't see the Calvinist-Arminian debate as a question about HOW a person is saved, but it's more about whether a Christian can lose his/her salvation. Calvin came down on the side of "security of the believer." The Arminian belief is that a Christian can lose his salvation. Of course, I'm really oversimplifying both positions. Again, I believe this as a dichotomy. I've read scriptures that seem to support both beliefs, so this SEEMS to be a contradiction. Any time we try to put the whole truth into a box that our human minds can completely grasp, we miss some aspect of the truth.

From what I understand, many groups have splintered from the Roman Catholic Church. Of course, these groups are not accepted as Catholics by the Catholic Church. I just read about a group of priests who splintered from the Catholic Church so that they could get married.... They still consider themselves to be Catholic, but they reject the doctrine of celibacy. And I've read about others over the years. So, this whole idea that only Protestants denominations have splintered is inaccurate, and it doesn't prove that the Catholic Church is the one true church.

Thank you. Please read my entire response before you start getting mad. It starts off very direct but I mean no harm

I really would love to carry on a conversation, however, to accomplish that one should respond to the others legitimate questions. That is how a conversation works. So I will try again with my most burning question: WHY are all the Protestant "truths" (interpretation of scripture which lead to doctrine) different if they all have the same Holy Spirit guiding them?

You kind of answered my question by saying that all the Protestants have the same "basic bible doctrines" however that leaves a whooole lot of other doctrines that are at odds with each other. Both Calvin and Luther excommunicated, kicked out of town and killed persons that disagreed with their doctrines (I know, so did The Church). Protestant churches all say they got their "truths" with guidance from the Holy Spirit, however, all their "truths" are different. Is the Holy Spirit confused?

You made the accusation that the Catholic interpretation of the Bible includes doctrines that clearly contradict the Bible and that they are unbiblical, man-made and not Spirit-breathed. What about the Lutheran and Presbyterian and Methodist etc etc Churches? Do their interpretations of the Bible include doctrines that clearly contradict the Bible that are unbiblical and are man-made, not Spirit-breathed? Who decides these things?

Now onto answering your questions: I am always studying Protestant beliefs/history but mainly over the last 3-4 years have I really delved into them. I have attended two different Protestant churches. Neither of them denominational. Both started by men who disagreed with their Senior pastors on doctrine/salvation so they started their own church. My spouse's father started/built his own church also, however, I never met him. He died prior to our marriage.

You are correct. Many groups have splintered from the Roman Catholic Church which means they are no longer Catholic (since they don't hold Catholic doctrine). However, one can splinter from a Protestant church and still be considered Protestant because Protestantism allows one to believe/practice/enact whatever doctrine/dogma they interpret from scripture and no one can tell them they are wrong which is the flaw of sola Scriptura: Whatever I determine to be the "truth" of scripture is the truth because I have been guided by the Holy Spirit. Hence, the aforementioned two churches I belonged to and my Father-in-law. Martin Luther even complained about others doing this in his writings even though he was doing it himself:

“I do not admit, that my doctrine can be judged by anyone, even the angels. He who does not receive my doctrine cannot be saved.”

There will be the greatest confusion. Nobody will allow himself to be led by another man’s doctrine or authority. Everybody will be his own rabbi; hence the greatest scandals.

There are as many sects and beliefs as there are heads. This fellow will have nothing to do with baptism; another denies the Sacrament; a third believes that there is another world between this and the Last Day. Some teach that Christ is not God; some say this, some say that. There is no rustic so rude but that, if he dreams or fancies anything, it must be the whisper of the Holy Spirit, and he himself a prophet.

How many doctors have I made through preaching and writing! Now they say, “Be off with you! Go off with you! Go to the devil!” Thus it must be. When we preach they laugh …. When we get angry and threaten them, they mock us, snap their fingers at us and laugh in their sleeves.

However, I get and understand your point about splintering of the Catholic Church also. You make a valid point.

BTW....There are married Catholic priest so those that splintered from the Catholic Church just so they could get married....Well, lets just say I'm willing to bet there is more to that story.

Respectfully, Mary

 

[Marymog]

Which brings us "once again" to my question to you - which you have still not addressed.

in the text above - even your own Jesuits say the word is "exterminate" - and the text shows that they steal the property owned by those who differ with the RCC and are condemned as heretics, as well as "in your words" - driving them away - driving them out of the nation that is their home. Stealing their property and business and driving them out of the nation "is the best" face you have found to put on something that even Pope Benedict said results in the murder of over 25 million.

=========== question we still wait for an answer to
My main question is - how in the world does it occur to you to want to compare the Catholic method of dealing with differences/dissent/opposition with someone today who has a difference with Calvinist teaching at some point?

When we read your quote above - we see you drawing attention to the way the RCC deals with those who differ -- when we read Lateran IV we see quite a different history in that regard. Curious as to why you are drawing our attention to this detail.

The Jesuits didn't say it....... the Jesuit website is quoting Schroeder!!! Schroeder said it...... Can you comprehend that???

When did I ever say the Catholic Church did no wrong in their entire 2,000 year history?????

If it makes you feel better I will apologize for the actions of sinful men that lived over 1,000 years ago. Do you feel better now?

When are you going to apologize for the actions of the Protestant leaders from 500 years ago who DID THE SAME THING????

Do you agree with what Calvin did in Geneva and too the people that disagreed with him?

I SINCERLY apologize. I can not decipher your "main question"

 

[jaybird]

1. Only the 66 books of the non-Catholic Bibles are *canonical* meaning that they are regarded as Scripture -- "the Word of God", because they were divinely inspired -- "God-breathed". The Hebrew canon had only 24 books, but many were split up when they were translated, so now we have 39 books in the OT.

im curious how you came to this conclusion that these 66 books, and only these 66 books are inspired. even stranger when there are at least 20 additional books mentioned by name within those 66 books of yours.

 

[Prayer Warrior]

Thank you. Please read my entire response before you start getting mad. It starts off very direct but I mean no harm

I really would love to carry on a conversation, however, to accomplish that one should respond to the others legitimate questions. That is how a conversation works. So I will try again with my most burning question: WHY are all the Protestant "truths" (interpretation of scripture which lead to doctrine) different if they all have the same Holy Spirit guiding them?

You kind of answered my question by saying that all the Protestants have the same "basic bible doctrines" however that leaves a whooole lot of other doctrines that are at odds with each other. Both Calvin and Luther excommunicated, kicked out of town and killed persons that disagreed with their doctrines (I know, so did The Church). Protestant churches all say they got their "truths" with guidance from the Holy Spirit, however, all their "truths" are different. Is the Holy Spirit confused?

You made the accusation that the Catholic interpretation of the Bible includes doctrines that clearly contradict the Bible and that they are unbiblical, man-made and not Spirit-breathed. What about the Lutheran and Presbyterian and Methodist etc etc Churches? Do their interpretations of the Bible include doctrines that clearly contradict the Bible that are unbiblical and are man-made, not Spirit-breathed? Who decides these things?

Now onto answering your questions: I am always studying Protestant beliefs/history but mainly over the last 3-4 years have I really delved into them. I have attended two different Protestant churches. Neither of them denominational. Both started by men who disagreed with their Senior pastors on doctrine/salvation so they started their own church. My spouse's father started/built his own church also, however, I never met him. He died prior to our marriage.

You are correct. Many groups have splintered from the Roman Catholic Church which means they are no longer Catholic (since they don't hold Catholic doctrine). However, one can splinter from a Protestant church and still be considered Protestant because Protestantism allows one to believe/practice/enact whatever doctrine/dogma they interpret from scripture and no one can tell them they are wrong which is the flaw of sola Scriptura: Whatever I determine to be the "truth" of scripture is the truth because I have been guided by the Holy Spirit. Hence, the aforementioned two churches I belonged to and my Father-in-law. Martin Luther even complained about others doing this in his writings even though he was doing it himself:

“I do not admit, that my doctrine can be judged by anyone, even the angels. He who does not receive my doctrine cannot be saved.”

There will be the greatest confusion. Nobody will allow himself to be led by another man’s doctrine or authority. Everybody will be his own rabbi; hence the greatest scandals.

There are as many sects and beliefs as there are heads. This fellow will have nothing to do with baptism; another denies the Sacrament; a third believes that there is another world between this and the Last Day. Some teach that Christ is not God; some say this, some say that. There is no rustic so rude but that, if he dreams or fancies anything, it must be the whisper of the Holy Spirit, and he himself a prophet.

How many doctors have I made through preaching and writing! Now they say, “Be off with you! Go off with you! Go to the devil!” Thus it must be. When we preach they laugh …. When we get angry and threaten them, they mock us, snap their fingers at us and laugh in their sleeves.

However, I get and understand your point about splintering of the Catholic Church also. You make a valid point.

BTW....There are married Catholic priest so those that splintered from the Catholic Church just so they could get married....Well, lets just say I'm willing to bet there is more to that story.

Respectfully, Mary

First, sorry to hear about your father-in-law. I'm sure your husband misses him. I lost my mom a few years back, and I still miss her a lot.

I don't think I've gotten mad at you. A little exasperated, but not mad. I've answered your main question about differing doctrines over and over and over. I don't know how to make you understand the difference between unbiblical doctrines and various facets of biblical doctrines. I'll just really have to pray about it and see if the Lord shows me anything to tell you.

Also, you don't need to quote the reformers to me to show me that they messed up sometimes. I know that they weren't perfect or infallible, by any means. But then, I would be a hypocrite if I said they were infallible. Since Adam fell, only one person has ever been perfect or infallible (and it's not me ).

At this point, I'm just wondering what you're hoping to get out of our discussion. To be quite honest, I believe that you're deceived in some of your Catholic beliefs, so I hope and pray that you'll see the truth whether you ever set foot in another Protestant church or not. Do you hope to convince me to believe that the Catholic Church is the one true church?

As a side note, the priests who split off might have had problems with other doctrines. I was just relaying what the article said. If you want me to, I can try to remember where I read it from the various news sites.

 

[epostle]

The Holy Spirit guides us into all truth when that's what we are seeking. If we're only willing to interpret the Bible through the lens of a particular church or denomination, then we will miss the "all" or whole truth.

Does that mean to possess "all" or the whole truth we must reject all denominations except yours?

I agree that popes are human, but the Catholic Church says that they are infallible when it comes to matters of doctrine. How can they be infallible and blatantly contradict another in matters of doctrine? The Bible is the infallible Word of God. Despite what some anti-Christians say, it doesn't contradict itself.

You make a charge of contracting doctrine but fail to give an example. It tells me you have a private definition of "doctrine" that doesn't match up with the historical dictionary definition. It's another straw man fallacy.

The criteria for infallibility has many facets to it. Doctrines flow from revealed truth, they cannot be invented. "Infallibility" and "doctrine" are topics in themselves. The Pope, as an individual, is not infallible.
I've yet to meet a sola scripturist who can comprehend infallibility no matter how many ways it is explained.
[/QUOTE]

What I have always loved is how both Jews and Catholics come up with "exceptions" whenever one of their doctrines gets a little uncomfortable. Protestants also violate their own doctrines..... but they don't (usually) invent exceptions (excuses) to enable them to continue doing so.

You do the same thing as PW. You make blind assertions with no examples and no evidence. You wouldn't like it either if somebody made up doctrinal "exceptions" about your church without saying what they were.

 

[Enoch111]

im curious how you came to this conclusion that these 66 books, and only these 66 books are inspired. even stranger when there are at least 20 additional books mentioned by name within those 66 books of yours.

Had the Reformation translators reverted back to the format of the Hebrew Bible (the Tanakh, which is our Old Testament) there would have been only 51 books in our Bible (24 +27 = 51), since the Tanakh had just 24 books (some of which were split to give 39 in our Bibles). And 39 + 27 = 66.

THE OT (39 books) -- called "the Scriptures" or "the Holy Scriptures" in the NT
Christ reiterated and therefore established the canon of the OT. Here is what He said: And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in [1] the law of Moses, and in [2] the prophets, and in [3] the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures... (Luke 24:44,45).

What we see here is that for the Lord Jesus Christ -- God manifest in the flesh (also called "the Word of God") -- the written Word of God (called "the Scriptures") until His time was limited to these three divisions in the Hebrew Tanakh. And that is how it is to this day.

The Law of Moses = Torah = 5 books
The Prophets = Nebiim or Neviim = 8 books
The Psalms = Kethubim or Ketuvim = 11 books
TOTAL = 24 BOOKS

THE NT (27 books)
1. Peter placed ALL of Paul's epistles alongside "the Scriptures". That is 51% of the NT (14 books).

2. Luke stated that he had received his Gospel "from above" (Gk anothen) (Lk 1:3) which was unfortunately translated as "from the very first".

3. John testified that his Gospel record was true, meaning divinely true (Jn 21:24).

4. Peter (regarding his own two epistles) said "we have a MORE SURE WORD OF PROPHECY" (2 Pet 1:19)

5. John regarding his first epistle (and by extension all three epistles) said "If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son" (1 Jn 5:9).

6. Regarding Revelation, John said: The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John: Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.(Rev 1:1,2)

7. Which leaves us with just five books which do not directly claim to be divinely inspired (Matthew, Mark, Acts, James, Jude, although Jude is mentioned in the 2nd century Muratori Canon). However, the Holy Spirit has borne witness with the spirits of countless Christians since the first century that those five books are equally inspired, hence canonical.

8. The 20 additional books (or whatever their number might be, since it varies) have been excluded from Scripture. There is an OT Apocrypha (including Pseudepigraphical books) and an NT Apocrypha (primarily Gnostic). The corrupted Greek translation of the OT (c 200 BC) called the Septuagint or LXX (Seventy) included the OT Apocrypha, and the Catholic and Orthodox Churches (where the clergy were unfamiliar with Hebrew) simply accepted most of those books. But the Reformers did not, even though the KJV (and other Reformation Bibles) placed the Apocrypha between the OT and the NT. They did distinguish between the Apocrypha and Scripture in their Preface.

9. As to some of the books mentioned in the Bible but not included, there was only passing reference to those books, not necessarily making them Scripture.

 

[jaybird]

Had the Reformation translators reverted back to the format of the Hebrew Bible (the Tanakh, which is our Old Testament) there would have been only 51 books in our Bible (24 +27 = 51), since the Tanakh had just 24 books (some of which were split to give 39 in our Bibles). And 39 + 27 = 66.

THE OT (39 books) -- called "the Scriptures" or "the Holy Scriptures" in the NT
Christ reiterated and therefore established the canon of the OT. Here is what He said: And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in [1] the law of Moses, and in [2] the prophets, and in [3] the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures... (Luke 24:44,45).

What we see here is that for the Lord Jesus Christ -- God manifest in the flesh (also called "the Word of God") -- the written Word of God (called "the Scriptures") until His time was limited to these three divisions in the Hebrew Tanakh. And that is how it is to this day.

The Law of Moses = Torah = 5 books
The Prophets = Nebiim or Neviim = 8 books
The Psalms = Kethubim or Ketuvim = 11 books
TOTAL = 24 BOOKS

THE NT (27 books)
1. Peter placed ALL of Paul's epistles alongside "the Scriptures". That is 51% of the NT (14 books).

2. Luke stated that he had received his Gospel "from above" (Gk anothen) (Lk 1:3) which was unfortunately translated as "from the very first".

3. John testified that his Gospel record was true, meaning divinely true (Jn 21:24).

4. Peter (regarding his own two epistles) said "we have a MORE SURE WORD OF PROPHECY" (2 Pet 1:19)

5. John regarding his first epistle (and by extension all three epistles) said "If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son" (1 Jn 5:9).

6. Regarding Revelation, John said: The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John: Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.(Rev 1:1,2)

7. Which leaves us with just five books which do not directly claim to be divinely inspired (Matthew, Mark, Acts, James, Jude, although Jude is mentioned in the 2nd century Muratori Canon). However, the Holy Spirit has borne witness with the spirits of countless Christians since the first century that those five books are equally inspired, hence canonical.

8. The 20 additional books (or whatever their number might be, since it varies) have been excluded from Scripture. There is an OT Apocrypha (including Pseudepigraphical books) and an NT Apocrypha (primarily Gnostic). The corrupted Greek translation of the OT (c 200 BC) called the Septuagint or LXX (Seventy) included the OT Apocrypha, and the Catholic and Orthodox Churches (where the clergy were unfamiliar with Hebrew) simply accepted most of those books. But the Reformers did not, even though the KJV (and other Reformation Bibles) placed the Apocrypha between the OT and the NT. They did distinguish between the Apocrypha and Scripture in their Preface.

9. As to some of the books mentioned in the Bible but not included, there was only passing reference to those books, not necessarily making them Scripture.

Peter calls Pauls writings “letters”, not scripture.

So these books are inspired because a group of men say they are inspired. Didnt these same councils give us crusades, inquisitions and burning people alive?

If the LXX is such a corrupt translation, why does neither Jesus, the 12 or St Paul mention this?

You also have the issue with the DSS matching up better with the LXX rather than the masoretic text. As well as the masoretic text was a pharisee translation with messianic passages that were edited.
it sure is strange that for so many hundreds of years the Jews never had a problem with the LXX, then this guy Jesus comes along, a new Jewish sect comes along with Him, the Christian sect gets stomped out and goes underground and then all of a sudden the Jewish leadership decide to change their canon of scripture. little hard to believe.

Passing reference as in
Joshua 10:13
13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

“is it not written”

and when Jesus refers to scripture:

John 10:34
Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’?

Then you have the issues with Jesus using teachings that can be found only in these books such as Tobit and Sirach. ( I can get the teachings later)

I have no issues with the books we have now, but their were many other books out there and it should never be up to a council of men to decide whats scripture, thats what the spirit of truth is for. IMO these books were removed for political reasons and nothing more.

 

[epostle]

Calling Abraham and Isaac FATHER is a genealogical term, not a spiritual one. As in when referring to all male parent.

Abraham is a geneological parent of a nation? That's absurd. You have no clue what "father" means.
and don't

- For I became your FATHER in Christ Jesus through the gospel

" (1 Cor. 4:14–15). Is figurative, most assuredly not the catholic use nor a title.

Catholics calling priests "father" is grounded in scripture, not calling your ministers "father" has no biblical basis whatsoever. It doesn't matter if you call it "figurative" or "spiritual, calling priests "father" has been demonstrated in scripture in several places over and over again. What you are doing is maintaining reformist anti-clericalism which is a tradition of men. Protestant ministers don't spiritually nourish their flock as a parent feeds heir children food??? You can't deny function but you deny text, and get bent out of shape because Catholics follow the Bible and you can't leave it alone. Your forefathers unbiblically abolished the sacrificial priesthood and have been trying to justify that man made tradition for 500 years. That is the root of this silly objection which has no biblical basis whatsoever. You have no mother, no fathers and pretend to be a family.

The usual objectors to calling priests "father" are fundamentalists or non-denoms or do-it-yourself theologians who divide, separate and build more walls all over the place. Your compelled to undermine the authority of the historic Church which is nowhere done in scripture.

Most fundies and non-denoms were founded within the last 10-20 years and many of their novel views can't be traced to the Apostles, and act like their self-made authority is apostolic.
Most Protestant communities have matured and don't bother making a fuss about this.

Did Mary have any children other than Jesus? If so, how can she be the eternal virgin?

This lie was invented in the mid 19th century by Protestant modernist heretics, (contrary to Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and others, and every Protestant church for 400 years) and has been refuted over and over again. It has become increasingly popular in Protestantism in the last 50 years. It's fad theology.

Jesus 'Brothers'

by Mark J. Bonocore

In the past few years, I've been amazed by the growing number of Christians who have renounced the traditional belief in Mary's perpetual virginity, citing as reason the 'brothers' and 'sisters' of the Lord referred to in Sacred Scripture.

Now, while many Protestants regard Mary's perpetual virginity as a uniquely 'Catholic belief,' it should be noted that the Protestant reformers Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli ALL professed this belief as well (for documentation, see for example Mary, Mother of All Christians by Max Thurian, written while he was a Calvinist theologian).

So, while I myself am a Catholic, I present this argument ecumenically using Scripture alone, to prove that these 'brothers' and 'sisters' are NOT the children of Joseph and Mary, and that the belief in Mary's perpetual virginity is in no way refuted by the New Testament. So, let us begin in Matthew...​

Jesus Brothers and Mary's Perpetual Virginity -- Catholic Apologetics, Philosophy, Spirituality

The astounding ignorance here is from you BoL that.

Judges 17:10; 18:19 – priesthood and fatherhood have always been identified together. Fatherhood literally means “communicating one’s nature,” and just as biological fathers communicate their nature to their children, so do spiritual fathers communicate the nature of God to us, their children, through (hopefully) teaching and example.

Acts 7:2; 22:1,1 John 2:13 – elders of the Church are called “fathers.” Therefore, we should ask the question, “Why don’t Protestants call their pastors “father?”

1 Cor. 4:17 – Paul calls Bishop Timothy a beloved and faithful “child” in the Lord.

2 Cor. 12:14 – Paul describes his role as parent over his “children” the Corinthians.

Phil. 2:22 – Paul calls Timothy’s service to him as a son serves a “father.”

1 Thess. 2:11- Paul compares the Church elders’ ministry to the people like a father with his children.

1 Tim. 1:2,18; 2 Tim. 1:2-3 – Paul calls Timothy his true “child” in the faith and his son.

Titus 1:4 – Paul calls Titus his true “child” in a common faith. Priests are our spiritual fathers in the family of God.

Philemon 10 – Paul says he has become the “father” of Onesimus.

1 Peter 5:13 – Peter refers to himself as father by calling Mark his “son.”

1 John 2:1,13,14 – John calls the elders of the Church “fathers.”

1 John 2:1,18,28; 3:18; 5:21; 3 John 4 – John calls members of the Church “children.”

Matt. 3:9; Luke 3:8 – Jesus refers to Abraham as our “father.”

Mark 11:10 – the people cried out blessed is the kingdom of our “father” David that is coming!

Luke 1:32 – God’s angel says Jesus will be great and be given the throne of his “father” David.

Luke 1:55 – Mary says that He spoke to our “fathers,” to Abraham and to his posterity for ever.

Luke 1:73 – Zechariah says the oath which he swore to our “father” Abraham.

Luke 16:24,30 – Jesus, in His parable about the rich man, says our “father” Abraham.

John 4:12 – the Samaritan woman asks Jesus if He is greater than our “father” Jacob.

John 7:22 – Jesus refers to the “fathers” who gave the Jews the practice of circumcision.

John 8:56 – Jesus tells the Jews your “Father” Abraham rejoiced that he was to see my day.

more here

The astounding ignorance here is from you BoL that.

Yea, right.

 

[epostle]

Peter calls Pauls writings “letters”, not scripture.
So these books are inspired because a group of men say they are inspired. Didnt these same councils give us crusades, inquisitions and burning people alive?

This is historical stupidity. The same group of men said the New Testament is inspired. They are wrong according to you. Did you fail to mention the Protestant Inquisition out of ignorance or are you just being another historically selective anti-Catholic? Councils taught truths, they never endorsed sinful behavior. BTW, it was the COUNCIL of Carthage that realized the final canon of scripture. A COUNCIL that hate cults teach people to despise.

If the LXX is such a corrupt translation, why does neither Jesus, the 12 or St Paul mention this?

Jesus and Paul refer to the deuterocanon in dozens of places.
DEUTEROCANONICAL BOOKS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT - Scripture Catholic

You also have the issue with the DSS matching up better with the LXX rather than the masoretic text. As well as the masoretic text was a pharisee translation with messianic passages that were edited.

The Church rejected the Masoretic canon in the 2nd century.

Passing reference as in
Joshua 10:13
13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

“is it not written”

and when Jesus refers to scripture:

John 10:34
Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’?

Then you have the issues with Jesus using teachings that can be found only in these books such as Tobit and Sirach. ( I can get the teachings later)

I have no issues with the books we have now, but their were many other books out there and it should never be up to a council of men to decide whats scripture, thats what the spirit of truth is for. IMO these books were removed for political reasons and nothing more.

Jesus always TEACHES scripture, He doesn't let scripture teach itself.

 

[CoreIssue]

Abraham is a geneological parent of a nation? That's absurd. You have no clue what "father" means.
and don't
Catholics calling priests "father" is grounded in scripture, not calling your ministers "father" has no biblical basis whatsoever. It doesn't matter if you call it "figurative" or "spiritual, calling priests "father" has been demonstrated in scripture in several places over and over again. What you are doing is maintaining reformist anti-clericalism which is a tradition of men. Protestant ministers don't spiritually nourish their flock as a parent feeds heir children food??? You can't deny function but you deny text, and get bent out of shape because Catholics follow the Bible and you can't leave it alone. Your forefathers unbiblically abolished the sacrificial priesthood and have been trying to justify that man made tradition for 500 years. That is the root of this silly objection which has no biblical basis whatsoever. You have no mother, no fathers and pretend to be a family.

The usual objectors to calling priests "father" are fundamentalists or non-denoms or do-it-yourself theologians who divide, separate and build more walls all over the place. Your compelled to undermine the authority of the historic Church which is nowhere done in scripture.

Most fundies and non-denoms were founded within the last 10-20 years and many of their novel views can't be traced to the Apostles, and act like their self-made authority is apostolic.
Most Protestant communities have matured and don't bother making a fuss about this.

This lie was invented in the mid 19th century by Protestant modernist heretics, (contrary to Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and others, and every Protestant church for 400 years) and has been refuted over and over again. It has become increasingly popular in Protestantism in the last 50 years. It's fad theology.

Jesus 'Brothers'

by Mark J. Bonocore

In the past few years, I've been amazed by the growing number of Christians who have renounced the traditional belief in Mary's perpetual virginity, citing as reason the 'brothers' and 'sisters' of the Lord referred to in Sacred Scripture.

Now, while many Protestants regard Mary's perpetual virginity as a uniquely 'Catholic belief,' it should be noted that the Protestant reformers Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli ALL professed this belief as well (for documentation, see for example Mary, Mother of All Christians by Max Thurian, written while he was a Calvinist theologian).

So, while I myself am a Catholic, I present this argument ecumenically using Scripture alone, to prove that these 'brothers' and 'sisters' are NOT the children of Joseph and Mary, and that the belief in Mary's perpetual virginity is in no way refuted by the New Testament. So, let us begin in Matthew...​

Jesus Brothers and Mary's Perpetual Virginity -- Catholic Apologetics, Philosophy, Spirituality



Judges 17:10; 18:19 – priesthood and fatherhood have always been identified together. Fatherhood literally means “communicating one’s nature,” and just as biological fathers communicate their nature to their children, so do spiritual fathers communicate the nature of God to us, their children, through (hopefully) teaching and example.

Acts 7:2; 22:1,1 John 2:13 – elders of the Church are called “fathers.” Therefore, we should ask the question, “Why don’t Protestants call their pastors “father?”

1 Cor. 4:17 – Paul calls Bishop Timothy a beloved and faithful “child” in the Lord.

2 Cor. 12:14 – Paul describes his role as parent over his “children” the Corinthians.

Phil. 2:22 – Paul calls Timothy’s service to him as a son serves a “father.”

1 Thess. 2:11- Paul compares the Church elders’ ministry to the people like a father with his children.

1 Tim. 1:2,18; 2 Tim. 1:2-3 – Paul calls Timothy his true “child” in the faith and his son.

Titus 1:4 – Paul calls Titus his true “child” in a common faith. Priests are our spiritual fathers in the family of God.

Philemon 10 – Paul says he has become the “father” of Onesimus.

1 Peter 5:13 – Peter refers to himself as father by calling Mark his “son.”

1 John 2:1,13,14 – John calls the elders of the Church “fathers.”

1 John 2:1,18,28; 3:18; 5:21; 3 John 4 – John calls members of the Church “children.”

Matt. 3:9; Luke 3:8 – Jesus refers to Abraham as our “father.”

Mark 11:10 – the people cried out blessed is the kingdom of our “father” David that is coming!

Luke 1:32 – God’s angel says Jesus will be great and be given the throne of his “father” David.

Luke 1:55 – Mary says that He spoke to our “fathers,” to Abraham and to his posterity for ever.

Luke 1:73 – Zechariah says the oath which he swore to our “father” Abraham.

Luke 16:24,30 – Jesus, in His parable about the rich man, says our “father” Abraham.

John 4:12 – the Samaritan woman asks Jesus if He is greater than our “father” Jacob.

John 7:22 – Jesus refers to the “fathers” who gave the Jews the practice of circumcision.

John 8:56 – Jesus tells the Jews your “Father” Abraham rejoiced that he was to see my day.

more here


Yea, right.

And all your sources are catholic, of course.

 

[jaybird]

This is historical stupidity. The same group of men said the New Testament is inspired. They are wrong according to you. Did you fail to mention the Protestant Inquisition out of ignorance or are you just being another historically selective anti-Catholic? Councils taught truths, they never endorsed sinful behavior. BTW, it was the COUNCIL of Carthage that realized the final canon of scripture. A COUNCIL that hate cults teach people to despise.

i dont care what the group of men say, the fact remains they are in fact a group of men, i can go out and assemble a group of men. the groups many times have agendas. these groups in question are both Catholic and non Catholic. i mentioned the crusades etc to demonstrate that the councils do in fact make mistakes.

Jesus and Paul refer to the deuterocanon in dozens of places.
DEUTEROCANONICAL BOOKS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT - Scripture Catholic

The Church rejected the Masoretic canon in the 2nd century.

i agree and have no problem with them.

Jesus always TEACHES scripture, He doesn't let scripture teach itself.

not sure what this means.

i have no problem with the current books, my problem is all those books that were voted out and we cant read without being mocked and and denounced.

 

[Prayer Warrior]

Thank you. Please read my entire response before you start getting mad. It starts off very direct but I mean no harm

I really would love to carry on a conversation, however, to accomplish that one should respond to the others legitimate questions. That is how a conversation works. So I will try again with my most burning question: WHY are all the Protestant "truths" (interpretation of scripture which lead to doctrine) different if they all have the same Holy Spirit guiding them?

You kind of answered my question by saying that all the Protestants have the same "basic bible doctrines" however that leaves a whooole lot of other doctrines that are at odds with each other. Both Calvin and Luther excommunicated, kicked out of town and killed persons that disagreed with their doctrines (I know, so did The Church). Protestant churches all say they got their "truths" with guidance from the Holy Spirit, however, all their "truths" are different. Is the Holy Spirit confused?

You made the accusation that the Catholic interpretation of the Bible includes doctrines that clearly contradict the Bible and that they are unbiblical, man-made and not Spirit-breathed. What about the Lutheran and Presbyterian and Methodist etc etc Churches? Do their interpretations of the Bible include doctrines that clearly contradict the Bible that are unbiblical and are man-made, not Spirit-breathed? Who decides these things?

Now onto answering your questions: I am always studying Protestant beliefs/history but mainly over the last 3-4 years have I really delved into them. I have attended two different Protestant churches. Neither of them denominational. Both started by men who disagreed with their Senior pastors on doctrine/salvation so they started their own church. My spouse's father started/built his own church also, however, I never met him. He died prior to our marriage.

You are correct. Many groups have splintered from the Roman Catholic Church which means they are no longer Catholic (since they don't hold Catholic doctrine). However, one can splinter from a Protestant church and still be considered Protestant because Protestantism allows one to believe/practice/enact whatever doctrine/dogma they interpret from scripture and no one can tell them they are wrong which is the flaw of sola Scriptura: Whatever I determine to be the "truth" of scripture is the truth because I have been guided by the Holy Spirit. Hence, the aforementioned two churches I belonged to and my Father-in-law. Martin Luther even complained about others doing this in his writings even though he was doing it himself:

“I do not admit, that my doctrine can be judged by anyone, even the angels. He who does not receive my doctrine cannot be saved.”

There will be the greatest confusion. Nobody will allow himself to be led by another man’s doctrine or authority. Everybody will be his own rabbi; hence the greatest scandals.

There are as many sects and beliefs as there are heads. This fellow will have nothing to do with baptism; another denies the Sacrament; a third believes that there is another world between this and the Last Day. Some teach that Christ is not God; some say this, some say that. There is no rustic so rude but that, if he dreams or fancies anything, it must be the whisper of the Holy Spirit, and he himself a prophet.

How many doctors have I made through preaching and writing! Now they say, “Be off with you! Go off with you! Go to the devil!” Thus it must be. When we preach they laugh …. When we get angry and threaten them, they mock us, snap their fingers at us and laugh in their sleeves.

However, I get and understand your point about splintering of the Catholic Church also. You make a valid point.

BTW....There are married Catholic priest so those that splintered from the Catholic Church just so they could get married....Well, lets just say I'm willing to bet there is more to that story.

Respectfully, Mary

Hi, Mary,

I'm replying again to your post above. I asked the Lord to show me what to tell you, and I found this website that I had not found before.... Here's an article that I think addresses at some of what you've been asking me.

Absolute Biblical Truth Opposed by Roman Catholicism | Berean Beacon

 

[Prayer Warrior]

Does that mean to possess "all" or the whole truth we must reject all denominations except yours?

You make a charge of contracting doctrine but fail to give an example. It tells me you have a private definition of "doctrine" that doesn't match up with the historical dictionary definition. It's another straw man fallacy.

The criteria for infallibility has many facets to it. Doctrines flow from revealed truth, they cannot be invented. "Infallibility" and "doctrine" are topics in themselves. The Pope, as an individual, is not infallible.
I've yet to meet a sola scripturist who can comprehend infallibility no matter how many ways it is explained.

I don't think that you can accept or reject my denomination. I don't have one.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Call was responsible for leading them to Christ. A catholic moves across country and walks into a new catholic church they still have to call them father even though they never saw them before in their life.

NOTHING unscriptural about calling our Priests "Father".
Jesus said, “Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.” (John 8:56).
St. Stephen refers to "our father Abraham," (Acts 7:2).
St. Paul speaks of "our father Isaac” (Romans 9:10).
For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel" (1 Cor. 4:14–15).

1 Thess. 5:12
We ask you, brothers, to respect those who are laboring among you and who are OVER YOU in the Lord and who admonish you,

1 Tim. 5:17
Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of DOUBLE HONOUR, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.

You did even look into the link about Mary having kids.

Did Mary have any children other than Jesus? If so, how can she be the eternal virgin?
Mary had four other sons, Joseph, James, Jude, and Simon. Because of the virgin birth, Joseph was not the father of Jesus so these were the half brothers of Jesus. The last three mentioned are not to be confused with those who were disciples of Jesus by the same name. Here are some passages where the other sons of Mary by Joseph are mentioned (Matt. 12:46; 13:55; Mark 6:3; John 2:12; 7:3, 5, 10; Acts 1:14; 1 Cor. 9:5; Gal. 1:19).

Waiting for you to concede defeat.

Well, you'll be waiting a LONG time because NONE of these people in ANY of these instances are named as being children of MARY.
As a matter of FACT, Einstein - Joseph and Simon are said to be the children of Mary's "Adelphe", standing with her near the cross

Matt. 27:56 says, "…among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee".

Mark 15:40 states, "There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome").

Finally, John 19:25 states, "But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene".

It says, "His mother's 'sister'". Now, we KNOW that it cannot be Mary's sister because her name is ALSO "Mary" - so she must be some other relation.
The Greek words "Adelphos" (brother) and "Adelphe" (sister) carry a multitude of definitions. They can mean, brother, sister, nephew, neice, uncle, aunt, cousin, neighbor, fellow countryman, fellow believer, etc.

WHY does the Bible NEVER mention ANY of the people you listed as being children of Mary??

Here is another thing you have to contend with. The writings of the Early Church Fathers attest to EVERYTHING in the New Testament. They substantiate every fact about Jesus and the Apostles.
Ummmmmm, WHY is it that the belief in Mary's Perpetual virginity was UNANIMOUSLY believed and taught by them??
Why is there not ONE SINGLE Early Church writing that speaks of Mary having other children??

YOUR turn . . .

 

[CoreIssue]

NOTHING unscriptural about calling our Priests "Father".
Jesus said, “Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.” (John 8:56).
St. Stephen refers to "our father Abraham," (Acts 7:2).
St. Paul speaks of "our father Isaac” (Romans 9:10).
For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel" (1 Cor. 4:14–15).

1 Thess. 5:12
We ask you, brothers, to respect those who are laboring among you and who are OVER YOU in the Lord and who admonish you,

1 Tim. 5:17
Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of DOUBLE HONOUR, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.

Well, you'll be waiting a LONG time because NONE of these people in ANY of these instances are named as being children of MARY.
As a matter of FACT, Einstein - Joseph and Simon are said to be the children of Mary's "Adelphe", standing with her near the cross

Matt. 27:56 says, "…among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee".

Mark 15:40 states, "There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome").

Finally, John 19:25 states, "But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene".

It says, "His mother's 'sister'". Now, we KNOW that it cannot be Mary's sister because her name is ALSO "Mary" - so she must be some other relation.
The Greek words "Adelphos" (brother) and "Adelphe" (sister) carry a multitude of definitions. They can mean, brother, sister, nephew, neice, uncle, aunt, cousin, neighbor, fellow countryman, fellow believer, etc.

WHY does the Bible NEVER mention ANY of the people you listed as being children of Mary??

Here is another thing you have to contend with. The writings of the Early Church Fathers attest to EVERYTHING in the New Testament. They substantiate every fact about Jesus and the Apostles.
Ummmmmm, WHY is it that the belief in Mary's Perpetual virginity was UNANIMOUSLY believed and taught by them??
Why is there not ONE SINGLE Early Church writing that speaks of Mary having other children??

YOUR turn . . .

Matthew 12:46 New International Version (NIV)
Jesus’ Mother and Brothers
46 While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him.

Luke 8:19 New International Version (NIV)
Jesus’ Mother and Brothers
19 Now Jesus’ mother and brothers came to see him, but they were not able to get near him because of the crowd.

Mark 3:31 New International Version (NIV)
31 Then Jesus’ mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him.

Matthew 13:55 New International Version (NIV)
55 “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?

Matthew 1
24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25 But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son.

Still waiting for you to limit error.

But then again, you were aware of these verses, but chose to avoid them.

I already pointed out your error in the use of father.

 

[epostle]

i dont care what the group of men say, the fact remains they are in fact a group of men, i can go out and assemble a group of men. the groups many times have agendas. these groups in question are both Catholic and non Catholic. i mentioned the crusades etc to demonstrate that the councils do in fact make mistakes.

The crusades had nothing to do with councils. The crusades were called to defend the Holy Land against invading Muslims. Europe had no armies. It had nothing to do with councils. Councils are modeled after the Council of Jerusalem and are mostly called to refute heretics. Human beings, under God's guidance, put the inspired books of the Bible into one canon. There were no Protestants in the 4th century.
Someone has given you the wrong impression of what a council does.

Councils don't make errors in teaching, people make errors in their behavior. Every anti-Catholic in the world can't tell the difference.

i have no problem with the current books, my problem is all those books that were voted out and we cant read without being mocked and and denounced.

Nonsense. Voted out books like the Gospel of Thomas, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Apocalypse of Peter are all available on line. You don't have to be a scholar to see WHY they were voted out. Some of it is still historically valuable even though they are not inspired.