Search results

Thats your false dilemma. The apocrypha was never considered inspired. So even if it was in the septuagint or Luthers bible, it was not thought of as inspired. Who cares how many books are in a list? We know what is canonical and what isn't. Jerome rejected your extra books.

Ripped off by what?

It was never considered inspired. Luther translated them too. He certainly didn't think they were inspired scripture.

Sorry, but youre bouncing between two different events. The rapture and the day of the Lord are two different things. Another poster already gave a few differences between the two, there are more. In one event we meet Jesus in the clouds, then He takes us home to heaven. In the other He...

If you mean by 'timing of events' the delivering of the faith, sure. Apples and oranges. Youre already starting to deviate. No, its because its what scripture says; How many times did Jesus say 'it is written'? What was He referring to? What did Paul say? 1Cor 4:6 I have applied these things...

Been there done that... repeatedly. If they are not admitted to the canon, they aren't inspired...duh.

Now youre being intentionally obtuse. I've given you citations where Jerome himself rejects your beloved apocrypha. Your 'gottcha' quote is nothing. I've explained that as well and gave the full text for you to consider which you obviously didn't. I'm not playing your games. Been there done...

Produce the letter. And cite your source. While it appears you can read, comprehension is still lacking. I've cited this a few times, but hey if youre unwilling to acknowledge it or read it then i'll just keep posting it. If i could make it blink i would. All those books ARE NOT IN THE CANON...

Regarding Jude 3, uh no. Its not talking about any 'correct timing'. It specifically says THE FAITH was once for all delivered. The faith was (past tense) delivered. What we have in our bibles is it. Any johnnie come lately doctrines are false and should be rejected. We in our brief lives will...

Youre cobbling together verses with different contexts. "My words are spirit..." is at the end of John six and the bread of life discourse. "The flesh profits nothing." Is another quote from that discourse. The topic isn't new revelation or new truth. The context is Him being the life giving...

John 16:13, the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of truth who leads us into all truth. Well there are a couple of other verses speaking of truth. "Thy word is truth." Also Jesus Himself said in John 14:6 I am the way, and the truth, and the life..Since we never stop growing in this life i have no...

Show me where i even defined infallible. How can i have a 'false definition' when i never defined it? Show me a verse in the bible regarding any 'gift of infallibility'. Spiritual gifts are in a few places in the n.t. Show us the 'gift of infallibility'. Then show us where this alleged gift is...

Theres no such thing as apostolic succession. An option you left out is simply as people are born again they continued to spread the gospel where ever they went. No one expected the disciples to go to the entire world. If you read acts 2 you'll see people from over a dozen regions/countries that...

First, there is too much in the article to correct, so i won't. The plain facts of history are; 1. Jerome rejected the apocrypha in the late 4th century. I've already cited those sources here in this thread. 2. The seven extra books catholics have in their bibles were never considered inspired...

Why don't you exegete those verses for us. Then define church and who comprises the church. Then show us the verse where anyone "in" the church is infallible. Christ is the head, we are the body. Your dancing around the issue.

Theres no such thing as people being infallible. Let alone the church...which is people.

Of course you think its irrelevant. But its not. Catholics love to ignore whats right in front of them when they don't like the implications. What else have you cited? Other than your opinion? Your desperation is showing. I've answered questions, provided scholarly sources and refuted your weak...

Youre arguing in circles. You've been refuted by your own catholic sources. Rome 382 has no surviving acts/decrees. Hippo has none. Any canon declared at carthage 397 wasn't read and affirmed until carthage 419. Read some history. Its not my job to do your homework. And read something other than...

Where did i say i had a problem with catholic sources? I'm using your own sources against you. Focus You haven't shown a decree from rome 382, not a reliable one anyway. Why does your own catholic history scholarship say of the rome 382 council, 'all acts/decrees are lost'? Then here comes that...

Wrong! A. All of those councils are local not ecumenical. Hence they have no binding authority on the entire church. B. Hefel (a roman catholic scholar) says himself that all the decrees of Rome 382 have been lost. Take it up with him. C. Your own Catholic Encyclopedia says; But it sounds like...