Books Outside the Bible

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

epostle

Well-Known Member
Jun 21, 2018
859
289
63
72
essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
more here: Sola Scriptura: Unbiblical!: Refutation of Dr. Richard Bennett
CONCLUSION
Anti-Catholics waive the "ex-priest" around like a trophy. Richard Bennett is like the guy who breaks up with his girlfriend and spends the rest of his life badmouthing her. Berean Beacon is a "Bible Christian" hate site that misleads millions with lies and misrepresentations and should be avoided.
 

Enoch111

Well-Known Member
May 27, 2018
17,688
15,997
113
Alberta
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
A good resource with copious articles refuting anti-Catholic stupidity.
If being anti-Catholic was stupid the Reformation would not have transformed Europe and the Western world.

What dyed-in-the-wool Catholic apologists fail to do is dispassionately examine their churches unbiblical, and frequently stupid doctrines, and practices.
 

Prayer Warrior

Well-Known Member
Sep 20, 2018
5,789
5,776
113
U.S.A.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
more here: Sola Scriptura: Unbiblical!: Refutation of Dr. Richard Bennett
CONCLUSION
Anti-Catholics waive the "ex-priest" around like a trophy. Richard Bennett is like the guy who breaks up with his girlfriend and spends the rest of his life badmouthing her. Berean Beacon is a "Bible Christian" hate site that misleads millions with lies and misrepresentations and should be avoided.

Let’s insert some TRUTH here! Richard Bennett was a Catholic priest who started reading the Bible! (Oh my! The audacity!) He found as he read the Word of God that Catholic doctrine didn’t match what he read in the Bible. He chose to believe the TRUTH! And you can too, Epo!
 
Last edited:

epostle

Well-Known Member
Jun 21, 2018
859
289
63
72
essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
funny to me that the only place there is no Catholic church there is also no Central Bank, hmm
The prophecy of Malachi 1:11 has been fulfilled only by the CC. I know of no country in the world that has no CC in it, unless you can enlighten me.
Your "Central Bank" dig is a classic non sequitur. (and a stupid one at that)



6e483b63c95efc7ac4b54ebf78726287-catholic-memes.jpg
 

epostle

Well-Known Member
Jun 21, 2018
859
289
63
72
essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Matthew 1:25 New International Version (NIV)
25 But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.
The old "until" argument has been repeatedly beaten to death. It proves a constant refusal to honestly examine the scriptures in order to support a man made tradition by falsifying what scripture says about the word "until". You should have the rebuttal of the abused word "until" memorized by now. Even the early reformers didn't stoop that low.

Matt. 1:25 – this verse says Joseph knew her “not until (“heos”, in Greek)” she bore a son. Some Protestants argue that this proves Joseph had relations with Mary after she bore a son. This is an erroneous reading of the text because “not until” does not mean “did not…until after.” “Heos” references the past, never the future. Instead, “not until” she bore a son means “not up to the point that” she bore a son. This confirms that Mary was a virgin when she bore Jesus. Here are other texts that prove “not until” means “not up to the point that”:

Matt. 28:29 – I am with you “until the end of the world.” This does not mean Jesus is not with us after the end of the world.

Luke 1:80 – John was in the desert “up to the point of his manifestation to Israel.” Not John “was in the desert until after” his manifestation.

Luke 2:37 – Anna was a widow “up to the point that” she was eighty-four years old. She was not a widow after eighty-four years old.

Luke 20:43 – Jesus says, “take your seat at my hand until I have made your enemies your footstool.” Jesus is not going to require the apostles to sit at His left hand after their enemies are their footstool.

1 Tim. 4:13 – “up to the point that I come,” attend to teaching and preaching. It does not mean do nothing “until after” I come.

Gen. 8:7 – the raven flew back and forth “up to the point that” [until] the waters dried from the earth. The raven did not start flying after the waters dried.

Gen. 28:15 – the Lord won’t leave Jacob “up to the point that” he does His promise. This does not mean the Lord will leave Jacob afterward.

Deut. 34:6 – but “up to the point of today” no one knows Moses’ burial place. This does not mean that “they did not know place until today.”

2 Sam. 6:23 – Saul’s daughter Micah was childless “up to the point” [until] her death. She was not with child after her death.

1 Macc. 5:54 – not one was slain “up to the point that” they returned in peace. They were not slain after they returned in peace.
THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY - Scripture Catholic

Mary having other children is, IMO, a doctrine of demons
because it diminishes the uniqueness of the Incarnation. You are not just defying "Catholic teaching", you are defying Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and every Protestant church on the planet. You've sold out to a false theory that developed in the mid 19th century and grown popular in the last 50 years. It's a tradition of men. Fad theology is not the truth.

“Heos” references the past, never the future.
 

CoreIssue

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2018
10,032
2,023
113
USA
christiantalkzone.net
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The old "until" argument has been repeatedly beaten to death. It proves a constant refusal to honestly examine the scriptures in order to support a man made tradition by falsifying what scripture says about the word "until". You should have the rebuttal of the abused word "until" memorized by now. Even the early reformers didn't stoop that low.

Matt. 1:25 – this verse says Joseph knew her “not until (“heos”, in Greek)” she bore a son. Some Protestants argue that this proves Joseph had relations with Mary after she bore a son. This is an erroneous reading of the text because “not until” does not mean “did not…until after.” “Heos” references the past, never the future. Instead, “not until” she bore a son means “not up to the point that” she bore a son. This confirms that Mary was a virgin when she bore Jesus. Here are other texts that prove “not until” means “not up to the point that”:

Matt. 28:29 – I am with you “until the end of the world.” This does not mean Jesus is not with us after the end of the world.

Luke 1:80 – John was in the desert “up to the point of his manifestation to Israel.” Not John “was in the desert until after” his manifestation.

Luke 2:37 – Anna was a widow “up to the point that” she was eighty-four years old. She was not a widow after eighty-four years old.

Luke 20:43 – Jesus says, “take your seat at my hand until I have made your enemies your footstool.” Jesus is not going to require the apostles to sit at His left hand after their enemies are their footstool.

1 Tim. 4:13 – “up to the point that I come,” attend to teaching and preaching. It does not mean do nothing “until after” I come.

Gen. 8:7 – the raven flew back and forth “up to the point that” [until] the waters dried from the earth. The raven did not start flying after the waters dried.

Gen. 28:15 – the Lord won’t leave Jacob “up to the point that” he does His promise. This does not mean the Lord will leave Jacob afterward.

Deut. 34:6 – but “up to the point of today” no one knows Moses’ burial place. This does not mean that “they did not know place until today.”

2 Sam. 6:23 – Saul’s daughter Micah was childless “up to the point” [until] her death. She was not with child after her death.

1 Macc. 5:54 – not one was slain “up to the point that” they returned in peace. They were not slain after they returned in peace.
THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY - Scripture Catholic

Mary having other children is, IMO, a doctrine of demons
because it diminishes the uniqueness of the Incarnation. You are not just defying "Catholic teaching", you are defying Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and every Protestant church on the planet. You've sold out to a false theory that developed in the mid 19th century and grown popular in the last 50 years. It's a tradition of men. Fad theology is not the truth.

“Heos” references the past, never the future.
The simple fact if you don't want to read the words.

Quoting non Biblical, catholic sources, sure does nothing for your cause.

And misquoting and misrepresenting bible verses just speaks to your desperation.

As far as Calvin goes:

John Calvin's views on Mary - Wikipedia
 

epostle

Well-Known Member
Jun 21, 2018
859
289
63
72
essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Let’s insert some TRUTH here! Richard Bennett was a Catholic priest who started reading the Bible! (Oh my! The audacity!) He found as he read the Word of God that Catholic doctrine didn’t match what he read in the Bible. He chose to believe the TRUTH! And you can too, Epo!
Richard Bennett has been exposed in post #739. Arius was a Catholic bishop who challenged the Doctrine of the Trinity so being a "Catholic bishop" does not bolster the testimony of a heretic.
People who want the facts can go one page back, #739. Burying tactics won't stop them.





quote-i-believe-in-god-not-in-a-catholic-god-the.jpg

 

epostle

Well-Known Member
Jun 21, 2018
859
289
63
72
essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
The simple fact if you don't want to read the words.

Quoting non Biblical, catholic sources, sure does nothing for your cause.

And misquoting and misrepresenting bible verses just speaks to your desperation.
change
As far as Calvin goes:

John Calvin's views on Mary - Wikipedia
I am not the one with the sudden change of subject. If you admit to your erroneous usage of "until", your position will begin to collapse. That's why you are changing the subject.
 
Last edited:

BobRyan

Active Member
Jul 27, 2018
388
131
43
Atlanta
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
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.

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

Jesuits have it on their own website -- or is it your argument that Protestants make Jesuits post things and Jesuits themselves don't have the training to read Latin??
 

BobRyan

Active Member
Jul 27, 2018
388
131
43
Atlanta
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Let’s insert some TRUTH here! Richard Bennett was a Catholic priest who started reading the Bible! (Oh my! The audacity!) He found as he read the Word of God that Catholic doctrine didn’t match what he read in the Bible. He chose to believe the TRUTH! And you can too, Epo!

We learn something new every day
 
  • Like
Reactions: Prayer Warrior

BobRyan

Active Member
Jul 27, 2018
388
131
43
Atlanta
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Sola Scriptura - Acts 17:11 "they studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by the Apostle Paul - WERE SO"..

End of story.

Gal 1:6-9 "though WE (apostles) or an angel from heaven should come to you preaching a different gospel - let him be accursed"
 
  • Like
Reactions: Prayer Warrior

BobRyan

Active Member
Jul 27, 2018
388
131
43
Atlanta
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
In the New Testament, it is the written word of God and that alone to which the Lord Jesus Christ and His apostles refer as the final authority. In the temptation, the Lord Jesus three times resisted Satan, saying, “It is written” as for example, in Matthew 4:4, “he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” In stating “It is written,” the Lord used the exact same phrase that is used in the Holy Bible forty six times. The persistence of the repeated phrase underlines its importance. The Lord’s total acceptance of the authority of the Old Testament is evident in His words found in Matthew 5:17-18,

Thank you for posting that.
 

BobRyan

Active Member
Jul 27, 2018
388
131
43
Atlanta
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
WHY are all the Protestant "truths" (interpretation of scripture which lead to doctrine) different if they all have the same Holy Spirit guiding them?

"protesting catholics" first began reading the Bible as it reads instead of bending it "as some traditions demand" and found that the RCC was in some cases teaching error.

So then "agreement" among protestants in general on "sola scriptura" and "saved by grace through faith"

Jesus hammers the tradition of the one-nation-church-magesterium of his day - "sola scriptura"

Mark 7
7 ‘But in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’
8 Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”
9 He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, is to be put to death’; 11 but you say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),’ 12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; 13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”
 

BobRyan

Active Member
Jul 27, 2018
388
131
43
Atlanta
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Luke 11:
27 While Jesus was saying these things, one of the women in the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You and the breasts at which You nursed.” 28 But He said, “On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it.”
 

epostle

Well-Known Member
Jun 21, 2018
859
289
63
72
essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
And it is the Jesuits themselves that are promoting it.

Internet History Sourcebooks Project

CANON 3
The SDA's take obscure outdated documents, that are disciplinary and not dogmatic, intended for the 12th century, and pretend it was written yesterday and act like each word is binding on all Catholics. You do the same thing.
Explanation of Fourth Lateran Council, canons 3 and 18

The Fourth Lateran Council does not apply to Protestants. It is a disciplinary document that is not dogmatic nor is it infallible. The hate site you gleaned it from has no sense of historical context. The only thing anti-Catholics prove with it is their stupidity and ignorance. It's 8 centuries old and most of it is meaningless in today's world. You won't paste in encyclicals of the last 100 years because they are not on "Bible Christian" hate sites. The hate sites you frequent are terrified of them.

  • Misericordia et Misera: (Mercy and Peace) - Apostolic Letter, Pope Francis (20 November, 2016)
  • Amoris laetitia: Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation on love in the family (19 March 2016)
  • Laudato si': (Praise be to you - On Care For Our Common Home) - Encyclical, Pope Francis - (May 24, 2015)
  • Evangelii Gaudium: Apostolic Exhortation on the Proclamation of the Gospel in Today's World (24 November 2013)
  • Lumen Fidei: (The Light of Faith) - Encyclical, Pope Francis, June 29, 2013

Go ahead, paste some of that. Be sure to link the source so we know you are not changing words. Pull your head out of the 12th century, if you can. Funny how none of it is in your favored bashing sites.

You accept Martin Luther's sola scriptura but denounce his views on Mary. I accept what has been handed down from the beginning, you accept whatever you choose.


anticatholicism.jpg
 
Last edited:

epostle

Well-Known Member
Jun 21, 2018
859
289
63
72
essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
"protesting catholics" first began reading the Bible as it reads instead of bending it "as some traditions demand" and found that the RCC was in some cases teaching error.

So then "agreement" among protestants in general on "sola scriptura" and "saved by grace through faith"

Jesus hammers the tradition of the one-nation-church-magesterium of his day - "sola scriptura"

Mark 7
7 ‘But in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the precepts of men
.’
8 Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”
9 He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, is to be put to death’; 11 but you say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),’ 12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; 13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”
I am well aware of bad traditions in the Bible. The sad thing is those are the only "tradition" verses you can find. You are trying to over-ride previous refutations.

People catch on to your repeated posts and scroll past them. Your trolling.

12234848-1012105452143898-6761828997743823799-n.jpg
 
Last edited:

epostle

Well-Known Member
Jun 21, 2018
859
289
63
72
essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Luke 11:
27 While Jesus was saying these things, one of the women in the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You and the breasts at which You nursed.” 28 But He said, “On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it.”
You are changing the words of scripture to force-fit it into your agenda. The Greek for your "on the contrary" is Μενοῦν which means "rather", as translated in Strong's 3304 [e]. And found in 27 Bible translations. "contrary" is found in only 8 modern translations, a departure from the KJV.
Cherry picking a specific translation to uphold an agenda is dishonest.
The way anti-Catholics read Luke 11 implies that Jesus is denigrating His mother. He is not. He is upbuilding those who do the will of God to the same status as His mother.(which is what she is for) She is a model of faith. They way anti-Catholics read it makes Jesus dishonor His mother making Jesus a sinner. That's where your rush to bash Catholicism leads.



catholicmeme001-jpg-resize-514-394.jpg
 
Last edited: