Apostolic councils?

[DNB]

Oh goodness.....once again, unnecessary sarcasm!!!!

Soooooo we know which men I am talking about; Any man in history from the death of the last Apostle until today that teaches what The Church teaches is.....according to you.......is speaking (teaching) nonsense!!! We have already established that is what you believe.

Soooooo there have been hundreds of other men with hundreds of contradicting teachings that have had nonsense come out of their mouths over the last 1,900 years.

Sooooo lets try this again: Who’s mouth has the nonsense come from? (Exclude anyone that teaches what The Church teaches)

Patient Mary

Circular reasoning.

 

[BreadOfLife]

your responses make no sense at all. so now the church couldnt read? its amusing watching you try to dig out of the holes you make.

Show me the post where I made tis idiotic claim.
YOUR problem is that you don't know how to pay attention and have an adult conversation.

in the end the fact still stands, the bible was not available to the common people. the church had the bibles and the church could have made them available, they chose not to. if they could read or not is not relevant. you could still have a bible in french, send it to a french town, and one person (surely one person in town could read) could have taught the others how to read.

Again with the moronic and historically-bankrupt statements . . .

ONE more time, junior:
Bible weren't "readily available". they were HANDWRITTEN and took YEARS to copy. They were so rare and expensive to produce that they were chained to pulpits so they wouldn't be stolen.

If that's too difficult for you to grasp - just say so and I'll dumb it down for you.[/QUOTE]

 

[BreadOfLife]

i didnt ask if it was in any canon, i asked if it was scripture. its not in any Jewish canon but Jews do not view Enoch as a NON scripture book.

WHAT??
Do you understand how stupid that statement is?

If it's not considered canonical - it's not considered SCRIPTURE.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I withdraw my statement regarding the removal of Enoch by a pope and a Roman emperor. I cannot find the basis for my claim.

I appreciate that.

 

[BreadOfLife]

...earth to BOL, earth to BOL, come in BOL, ...Houston, I think we have a problem?
It was the pope who condemned Wycliffe (posthumously) for his translation of the English Bible, and this was the principle that Henry VIII acted upon.

Another failure to produce evidence for your false claims.
The Pope never ordered or even told Henry to have Tyndale executed.

As I pointed out earlier - which you obviously ignored - Tyndale was executed for producing a perverted and heretical Bible - just like Wycliffe was. NEITHER was executed for translating the Bible into the vernacular, as you originally claimed. This was ALREADY being done by the Church.

 

[jaybird]

Show me the post where I made tis idiotic claim.
YOUR problem is that you don't know how to pay attention and have an adult conversation.

Again with the moronic and historically-bankrupt statements . . .

ONE more time, junior:
Bible weren't "readily available". they were HANDWRITTEN and took YEARS to copy. They were so rare and expensive to produce that they were chained to pulpits so they wouldn't be stolen.

If that's too difficult for you to grasp - just say so and I'll dumb it down for you.

[/QUOTE]

but the church had books right? the church had the keys to the kingdom of reading but were so greedy they refused to share. very shameful.

 

[jaybird]

WHAT??
Do you understand how stupid that statement is?

If it's not considered canonical - it's not considered SCRIPTURE.

the Jews of Qumran thought it was scripture. John the baptist was part of that community, James the just probably was as well.
but i get what you are saying, their view of what was considered scripture was not roman council approved. they were to busy hiding their books while rome was destroying everything.

 

[BreadOfLife]

but the church had books right? the church had the keys to the kingdom of reading but were so greedy they refused to share. very shameful.

Sooooo, you failed to read the part about 85-90% of the population being functionally illiterate.

You also apparently, have never been to a Mass.
In a 3-year cycle - virtually ALL of the Bible is read and preached on during the Liturgy of the Word in the Mass.

I would never expect YOU in the depths of your ignorance to know that . . .

the Jews of Qumran thought it was scripture. John the baptist was part of that community, James the just probably was as well.
but i get what you are saying, their view of what was considered scripture was not roman council approved. they were to busy hiding their books while rome was destroying everything.

The Jews of Qumran ALSO had the Deuterocanonical Books in their collection that Protestants reject.

Can YOU say, "Hypocrisy"?

 

[DNB]

Another failure to produce evidence for your false claims.
The Pope never ordered or even told Henry to have Tyndale executed.

As I pointed out earlier - which you obviously ignored - Tyndale was executed for producing a perverted and heretical Bible - just like Wycliffe was. NEITHER was executed for translating the Bible into the vernacular, as you originally claimed. This was ALREADY being done by the Church.

Just curious, may I ask why you consider Tyndale's translation as heretical?

 

[Marymog]

Point them out to me, I want names and locations Mary. You said the Church was visible, I said it's not, all you did was theorize about apostolic succession. I'm asking for visible and tangible proof that such men of apostolic authority and power still exist today, and that you can point me to a Church where you believe that all the members are saved, with 100% certitude.

Hi DNB,

Names and places? Do you not know Scripture and your own Christian history? I will give you what names we have from historical Christian writings....You can do your own homework and look up their places:

Mathias
Timothy
Clement
Polycarp
Ignatious

Did you know that Ignatius of Antioch wrote a series of letters to local churches as he journeyed to Rome for his execution? Did you know that in those letters he repeatedly attests that each local church he passes has the three-fold hierarchy of a bishop, several priests, and several deacons.

Sooooo there ya’ go kiddo. There are SOME names for you so you can get your homework started so you can learn the faith you are defending and practicing.

There is no church were all members are saved. What a silly question.

It seems to me that you believe that the visible church that Christ started disappeared at some point. You have failed to back up that theory with anything but your opinion.

Unless you can explain to me something: Christ taught the Apostles the Truth.
The Apostles taught other good, faithful men the Truth

Who did those “good, faithful men” teach the Truth? According to your theory....no one!

 

[Marymog]

Circular reasoning.

Got it....You say that men started teaching nonsense but you can’t name those men or what nonsense they were teaching.

That’s ok...I already knew you couldn’t answer. I just wanted to give you a chance to TRY and answer.

Thank you for your time.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Just curious, may I ask why you consider Tyndale's translation as heretical?

The Church rejected Tyndale’s translation partly because of the he rendered words to purposely undermine Church teaching. For example, he rendered ekklesia as “congregation” instead of “church”). Even your fabled KJV – which is said by Protestants to be the “most accurate” English translation renders this word as “church”.

According to St. Thomas More his contemporary in England – Tyndale perverted many other terms, effectively changing the meaning of Scripture. He changed the word “Baptism” into “washing”, “Scripture” into “writing”, “Holy Ghost” into “Holy Wind”, “Bishop” into “Overseer,” Priest into “Elder”, “Deacon” into “Minister”, “heresy” into “choice”, “martyr” into “witness”, and “evangelist” into “bearer of good news.”

Not only was Tyndale discouraged from writing his own translation – he was a priest who disobediently snubbed his nose at authority. He was known as a mediocre scholar – who would not have been the first choice to translate the Bible anyway. Besides, there were ALREADY several English translations before Tyndale and Wycliffe (read, Where We Got the Bible by Henry Graham, ch. 11, “Vernacular Scriptures Before Wycliff”).

The notes and prologue in his version of the Bible also contained virulent attacks on the Church and institutions like the papacy. Even Protestant authors David Price and Charles C. Ryrie say of his translation:
“Unquestionably, anti-Catholic outbursts are sufficiently numerous to make a strong impression on any reader.”

 

[DNB]

Hi DNB,

Names and places? Do you not know Scripture and your own Christian history? I will give you what names we have from historical Christian writings....You can do your own homework and look up their places:

Mathias
Timothy
Clement
Polycarp
Ignatious

Did you know that Ignatius of Antioch wrote a series of letters to local churches as he journeyed to Rome for his execution? Did you know that in those letters he repeatedly attests that each local church he passes has the three-fold hierarchy of a bishop, several priests, and several deacons.

Sooooo there ya’ go kiddo. There are SOME names for you so you can get your homework started so you can learn the faith you are defending and practicing.

There is no church were all members are saved. What a silly question.

It seems to me that you believe that the visible church that Christ started disappeared at some point. You have failed to back up that theory with anything but your opinion.

Unless you can explain to me something: Christ taught the Apostles the Truth.
The Apostles taught other good, faithful men the Truth

Who did those “good, faithful men” teach the Truth? According to your theory....no one!

Today, Mary, today. I don't want evidence from the 2nd generation disciples, or even the 3rd, it is the 4th century and up, where we see the disintegration of orthodoxy in such an overt an undeniable manner. All the ecumenical councils, Tertullian, Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, the papacy, transubstantiation/consubstantiation, Mariology, indulgences, inquisitions, crusades, ransom theory, satisfaction theory, penal substitution, Christus Victor, ....
The nonsense infiltrated the church right after day one, and has permeated almost its entire theology up to this day. Show me where these current day precepts and dogma are by apostolic succession.

 

[Marymog]

Today, Mary, today. I don't want evidence from the 2nd generation disciples, or even the 3rd, it is the 4th century and up, where we see the disintegration of orthodoxy in such an overt an undeniable manner. All the ecumenical councils, Tertullian, Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, the papacy, transubstantiation/consubstantiation, Mariology, indulgences, inquisitions, crusades, ransom theory, satisfaction theory, penal substitution, Christus Victor, ....
The nonsense infiltrated the church right after day one, and has permeated almost its entire theology up to this day.

Hi DNB,

Can explain to me something?

Christ taught the Apostles the Truth.
The Apostles taught other good, faithful men the Truth

Who did those “good, faithful men” teach the Truth? Once you can answer that (with evidence) we will know who DIDN'T teach nonsense and start the "disintegration of orthodoxy"!

You Believe "The nonsense infiltrated the church right after day one". What is your evidence for that?

Do you think that Clement, Polycarp and Ignatius wrote nonsense? Is that what you are saying?

Curious Mary

 

[DNB]

The Church rejected Tyndale’s translation partly because of the he rendered words to purposely undermine Church teaching. For example, he rendered ekklesia as “congregation” instead of “church”). Even your fabled KJV – which is said by Protestants to be the “most accurate” English translation renders this word as “church”.

According to St. Thomas More his contemporary in England – Tyndale perverted many other terms, effectively changing the meaning of Scripture. He changed the word “Baptism” into “washing”, “Scripture” into “writing”, “Holy Ghost” into “Holy Wind”, “Bishop” into “Overseer,” Priest into “Elder”, “Deacon” into “Minister”, “heresy” into “choice”, “martyr” into “witness”, and “evangelist” into “bearer of good news.”

Not only was Tyndale discouraged from writing his own translation – he was a priest who disobediently snubbed his nose at authority. He was known as a mediocre scholar – who would not have been the first choice to translate the Bible anyway. Besides, there were ALREADY several English translations before Tyndale and Wycliffe (read, Where We Got the Bible by Henry Graham, ch. 11, “Vernacular Scriptures Before Wycliff”).

The notes and prologue in his version of the Bible also contained virulent attacks on the Church and institutions like the papacy. Even Protestant authors David Price and Charles C. Ryrie say of his translation:
“Unquestionably, anti-Catholic outbursts are sufficiently numerous to make a strong impression on any reader.”

Yes, you're right, I do remember now that Tyndale did have controversial translations in his edition. Of course, this was by design, he shared the anti-Catholic sentiments of Wycliffe in many ways, Especially when they wouldn't give him the authority to render an English translation, though his intent being extremely honourable '...even the plough boy will be able to cite Scripture better than you...', his desire to expose the overt tyranny of the Church became ever more, one of the main impetuses behind his translation efforts. It was the Vulgate that had the errors, not the Tyndale edition, Erasmus made this very clear.

 

[DNB]

Hi DNB,

Can explain to me something?

Christ taught the Apostles the Truth.
The Apostles taught other good, faithful men the Truth

Who did those “good, faithful men” teach the Truth? Once you can answer that (with evidence) we will know who DIDN'T teach nonsense and start the "disintegration of orthodoxy"!

You Believe "The nonsense infiltrated the church right after day one". What is your evidence for that?

Do you think that Clement, Polycarp and Ignatius wrote nonsense? Is that what you are saying?

Curious Mary

Are you a thorn-in-my-side sent by satan? Did you not even read my post that you actually replied to?
Like I said, the sub-apostolic era is still to early to unequivocally delineate the heterodoxy. It is the EXAMPLES THAT I GAVE, THAT YOU KEEP ASKING FOR, where the evidence is clear that corruption, almost immediately, dominated the church and its history.

I don't want evidence from the 2nd generation disciples, or even the 3rd, it is the 4th century and up, where we see the disintegration of orthodoxy in such an overt an undeniable manner. All the ecumenical councils, Tertullian, Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, the papacy, transubstantiation/consubstantiation, Mariology, indulgences, inquisitions, crusades, ransom theory, satisfaction theory, penal substitution, Christus Victor, ....
How long is this going to take Mary???

 

[jaybird]

Sooooo, you failed to read the part about 85-90% of the population being functionally illiterate.

You also apparently, have never been to a Mass.
In a 3-year cycle - virtually ALL of the Bible is read and preached on during the Liturgy of the Word in the Mass.

I would never expect YOU in the depths of your ignorance to know that . . .

The Jews of Qumran ALSO had the Deuterocanonical Books in their collection that Protestants reject.

Can YOU say, "Hypocrisy"?

they were all illiterate because the church wanted it that way. the church had the means to change that, they chose not to. this is what you keep dancing around.

80-90% does not mean the church only knew how to read. so this is no excuse. claiming books were expensive is no excuse. there were people out there that did in fact have the means to make bibles in their own language, the church fought against this.
why did the church fight so hard against people having bibles in their own language?
in the old days before rome took over you had Hebrew, Greek, Syriac, etc, thats how the message of Jesus spread, thats the way of the Faith, thats the way of Christianity, but thats not the way of rome and rome put a stop to it, just like rome changed so many things with the faith.

i have always agreed with the Catholic bible over the Prots bible, better books and better source text. but dont forget about all the books rome got rid of, Thomas, Clement, Hermas, etc, these books were loved by the people but interfered with roman politics so rome got rid of them against the wishes of the people of Christianity.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Yes, you're right, I do remember now that Tyndale did have controversial translations in his edition. Of course, this was by design, he shared the anti-Catholic sentiments of Wycliffe in many ways, Especially when they wouldn't give him the authority to render an English translation, though his intent being extremely honourable '...even the plough boy will be able to cite Scripture better than you...', his desire to expose the overt tyranny of the Church became ever more, one of the main impetuses behind his translation efforts. It was the Vulgate that had the errors, not the Tyndale edition, Erasmus made this very clear.

No - Tyndale wasn't emboldened by Wycliffe - He had gone to Worms and was infected by Luther's anti-Catholicism.
THAT'S why he rendered his translation the way he did. It had nothing to do with the "truth" - and everything to do with spite.

Tyndale was resentful at the lack of support for his plans to translate the Bible. As I told you before - it was NO small wonder WHY he had no support. He was NOT known to be a capable enough scholar - which he wasn't.

 

[BreadOfLife]

they were all illiterate because the church wanted it that way. the church had the means to change that, they chose not to. this is what you keep dancing around.

80-90% does not mean the church only knew how to read. so this is no excuse. claiming books were expensive is no excuse. there were people out there that did in fact have the means to make bibles in their own language, the church fought against this.
why did the church fight so hard against people having bibles in their own language?
in the old days before rome took over you had Hebrew, Greek, Syriac, etc, thats how the message of Jesus spread, thats the way of the Faith, thats the way of Christianity, but thats not the way of rome and rome put a stop to it, just like rome changed so many things with the faith.

i have always agreed with the Catholic bible over the Prots bible, better books and better source text. but dont forget about all the books rome got rid of, Thomas, Clement, Hermas, etc, these books were loved by the people but interfered with roman politics so rome got rid of them against the wishes of the people of Christianity.

85-90% of the WORLD was illiterate - not just Christianity.
The Church didn't have jurisdiction over the entire world, Einstein.

What's wrong with you? You appear to have cognitive issues.
I repeat these facts over an over and they just don't seem to sink in.

As for your nonsense that the Church "fought against" people having Bibles in different languages - that's about the MOST idiotic thing you've said. As I educated you earlier - there were ALREADY Bibles in different languages BEFORE Wycliffe and Luther.
What part of that statement are you having difficulty with?

 

[DNB]

No - Tyndale wasn't emboldened by Wycliffe - He had gone to Worms and was infected by Luther's anti-Catholicism.
THAT'S why he rendered his translation the way he did. It had nothing to do with the "truth" - and everything to do with spite.

Tyndale was resentful at the lack of support for his plans to translate the Bible. As I told you before - it was NO small wonder WHY he had no support. He was NOT known to be a capable enough scholar - which he wasn't.

He was one of the most renowned scholars of his time, I do believe. A linguistic phenomenon for sure. You're extremely biased BOL, due to your being indoctrinated in Catholic dogma. I don't believe that you'd be willing to concede a single point that denounces any of the, indubitably, heterodox historical practices of the Roman Catholic church? Like I keep saying, your unwarranted and implicit allegiance to them, will be your demise now, and on Judgment Day - you need to call them out on their tyranny and anti-Christian dogma.