How Christianity was the catalyst of the Holocaust:

[Sir Knight]

Actually, the bible (INCLUDING the Deuterocanonical books or the Apocrypha) was canonized in the late fourth century. Copies of the complete bible have been found to shortly (within a few centuries afterwards) to that time period.

 

[Sir Knight]

History written by Whom? Supported by Whom? The catholic church in arms with the authorities of this world can make up any supposed line of succession they want. I do not trust in the historical records produced by the catholic church aided by the authorities of the time. Both where and are still corrupt.

Just because you do not believe something does not make it false. It stands as recorded history.

I am not a calvanist and i am not a lutheran. I have stated already in this thread that i do not call myself a protestant. I see the events of the protestant rebellion as achieving one thing only and that was the liberation of the Gospels from the clutches of the catholic church and allowing the Word to be read by and to all men. That is what was important. In the OT God used the Persians to bring about destruction of Israel and lead the survivors bound in slavery to Babylon, now the Persians where not true Jews. God can and does use people who are not His followers to achieve His purpose.

Scripture has it that the Church that Jesus established would exist for all generations. Where is this Church today and how does it trace it's roots back to Peter and the Apostles?

Lets read the Scriptures shall we:Hebrews 1026 For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries.It is not "for if we sin after we have received the knowledge of truth"..It is: For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth,What does willfully mean? It means that we sin with a spirit of wilful defiance to the Holy Spirits conviction. This is totally different from a sinner who sins because of the weakness of the flesh. As Paul confessed to doing.Romans 714 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin. 15 For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. 16 If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good. 17 But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. Paul was a sinner after becoming a Saint. But look at His will He agreed with the Law that it was good He hated the sin he committed. This is the right spirit of a true Christian. He was not a willfull sinner His will was against the sin He did.

Boy, are you confused. Sin, by definition, is a WILLFUL act. One can not sin by accident.

to save sinners, of whom I am chief.[/B]

That's where the concept of Purgatory comes in and the forgiveness of sins by the priest.

Then what proof can you offer that you are also not one of the ones who THINKS that they are guided by the Holy Spirit but in reality are not?

The Body of Christ is visible and always has been. We do not need official titles backed by the power of the state and tax breaks. I am a part of the Body of Christ.

You DO need official titles. The Bible commands us to obey our Church leaders. The Bible tells us that Bishops and Elders are those leaders and they do not take that authority upon themselves but receive it from someone who already has that authority by the laying on of hands. Even St. Paul' date=' who was personally picked by Jesus, did not begin his ministry until after meeting with Peter and having a Bishop lay hands on him. And that, is in the bible!

I am here with the scriptures communicating with you today. Working as an evangelist and a watchman. I will stand by the truth that the Holy Spirit convicts me of.

I ask again, what proof can you offer which differs from the 24,999+ other denominations who falsely believe that they too are being guided by the Holy Spirit?

You cannot claim that the catholic church is correct because there are many protestant organizations.

The fact that NO Protestant organization existed prior to the 16th century EXCLUDES them from the running because the bible says that Christ's Church would exist for all generations.

You keep claiming that the Holy Spirit will establish what is correct. That is the claim of 25,000+ Protestant denominations. Yet, AT BEST, only one of them can be correct and 24,999+ of them are making FALSE claims.

 

[soulja boy]

That doesn't mean to address every misrepresentation that everyone can dream up.

Then remove the verse at is says "ALWAYS give an account..."

The Church in the NT had a clear & visible Hierarchical structure. The leaders were appointed by the Apostles. No leader ever took that leadership role upon himself. The NT also makes it very clear that we are to obey those Church leaders.

And those leaders were the Elders as I said referred to 17 times in scripture whereas there is not one mention of a pope, cardinal, monsigniour, father, priest etc. etc. If they are recorded in scripture please show me where.

Jesus instructed the Apostles and their successors to go out and forgive sins. He also told them that they could retain (not forgive) sins. How are they suppose to know whether to forgive or retain a sin if a person doesn't confess the sin? Let's use a little bit of logic, shall we?

But nowhere does it tell us to confess our sins to a priest in a confessional box. it says to confess our sins one to another (James). That is the point I am making but which you choose to ignore.

When? When Jesus told Peter to feed His sheep, tend His lambs, etc. Jesus turned over His flock (including the Apostles -- thus the separation between lamb and sheep) for Peter to shepard. Peter's successor continued in this job that was given to Peter by the Son of God. Over time, this position became known as the Pope.

Once again you are avoiding the issue, which I note is common for rc when they don't have an answer. When Jesus said to Peter he was to feed the sheep, it means to shepherd them as in Ephesians 4;11. The greek does not support your fanciful idea that he was appointed pope apart from the fact that no one was appointed his successor in scripture.I will say it again the pope is a man made idea and the only thing he has authority over is the rc church and no one else.

And the Apostles gave us Bishops. If they didn't have the authority to do so, then you might as well throw out all of the NT since it was written by the Apostles and their successors. Popes and Cardinals ARE Bishops!

Jesus didn't so you have either entered the realm of eisegesis again or the apostles were appointing people that Jesus did not approve of. It is my feeling that it is the first as the apostles did not appoint bishops, they appointed Elders.

Bishops oversee Church Elders. Popes and Cardinals ARE Bishops.

Not in the NT. Popes and cardinals are not mentioned once. Elders are mentioned 17 times. According to you, they did not know what they were talking about.

And for your information, the Pope washes the feet of the other priests during Holy Thursday. So, on Holy Thursday, the Pope became humbled when he washed the feet of the other priests.

And for your information, I don't see anywhere where we are told to be humble on so called "Holy Thursday". The scripture makes it quite clear that humility is to be practiced every day.And for your information, you have missed the point, I wasn't talking about the rank and file being humble, I was talking about the pope and his cardinals being humble. Having to kiss their feet doesn't speak to me of humility. It speaks to me of superiority as does his extravagant regalia which again is not to be found in scripture.

A man who bowed his head and kissed the quran, a book that denies the crucifixion and resurrection of the Messiah Jesus and teaches that such beliefs are blasphemy. What kind of man would kiss a book of an anti-christ?Probably the same kind as the men who abandoned their true King of Kings Jesus and bowed their heads down to kiss the feet of constantine.

Excellent point Adstar.

 

[soulja boy]

Adstar, you and Souja Boy were the ones who "bragged" about being holy.

No I didn't. That is your interptretatin in an attempt to belittle us to avoid the real issues. A case of playing the man, not the ball.

 

[Diana]

If you looked up the Greek word for "Elder," you would have known it is "presbyteros." Translated into English it means "Bishop" or "priests." Our priests are also called "presbyters." And so when St. Peter said that he is also an Elder, it means that he is a bishop (1 Peter 5:1).

And for your information, I don't see anywhere where we are told to be humble on so called "Holy Thursday". The scripture makes it quite clear that humility is to be practiced every day.

I agree, and that's why I called myself a sinner.

 

[Sir Knight]

And those leaders were the Elders as I said referred to 17 times in scripture whereas there is not one mention of a pope' date=' cardinal, monsigniour, father, priest etc. etc. If they are recorded in scripture please show me where.[/quote'] In 1 Tim. 3:1 Paul uses the word "episcopoi" i.e., Bishop -- overseers. Elders refers to leaders of local Churches -- Priests. As the Church grew in size, monsigniours were introduced which refered to a senior priest or senior elder. The same with the office of Bishops -- A Cardinal is a senior bishop. The Pope is the supreme Bishop. And by what authority was this done? By the same authority that the Apostles introduced the concept of Bishops and elders.

Once again you are avoiding the issue, which I note is common for rc when they don't have an answer. When Jesus said to Peter he was to feed the sheep, it means to shepherd them as in Ephesians 4;11. The greek does not support your fanciful idea that he was appointed pope apart from the fact that no one was appointed his successor in scripture.

Actually, the Greek does support this idea along with Luke 22:31-32 where Jesus prays for Peter ALONE that his faith may not fail, and charges him to strengthen the rest of the apostles ... clearly seperating Peter from the rest of the Apostles giving him a special duty of taking care of the other Apostles. This is consistent with Matt. 16:18 where Jesus builds the Church ONLY on Peter, the rock, with the other apostles as the foundation and Jesus as the Head. Furthermore, in Matt. 16:19 ONLY Peter receives the keys -- which represent authority over the Church and facilitate dynastic succession to his authority.

I will say it again the pope is a man made idea and the only thing he has authority over is the rc church and no one else.

If the Pope has no authority, then you have no proof that the Bible is the Word of God because somebody with authority had to officially declare what scripture was included within it's pages and what was excluded. If the Catholic Church, via the Pope, has not authority, then prove to me that the Gospel of Thomas does not belong in the bible while the Gospel of Mark does belong in the bible. They both CLAIM to be the Word of God and Thomas was an Apostle of Christ while Mark wasn't even a disciple of Jesus.Why should Mark be included and Thomas be excluded? Someone with authority had to make that decision. Someone with authority had to decide on every book that went in and on every book that was kept out. If it wasn't done by someone with authority, then there is no proof that the bible is the Word of God because some books that were excluded maybe should have been included and vice versa.

 

[Christina]

The pope had nothing to do with our Bible ...The Old testament was kept by the hebrews and is thousands of years older than any Catholic Church .... The new testament that comes down to us today was commisioned by King James In 1604, King James I of England authorized that a new translation of the Bible into English be started. It was finished in 1611, just 85 years after the first translation of the New Testament into English appeared (Tyndale, 1526). In the preface to the 1611 edition, the translators of the Authorized Version, or King James Version, state that is was not their purpose “to make a new translation . . . but to make a good one better.” The King JamesVersion quickly became the standard for English-speaking Protestants. Its flowing language and prose rhythms have had a profound influence on the literature of the past 400 years. King James Version - Translation methodThe King James translation was done by 47 scholars, all of whom were members of the Church of England. In common with most other translations of the period, the New Testament was translated from the Textus Receptus (Received Text) series of the Greek texts. The Old Testament was translated from the Masoretic Hebrew text, while the Apocrypha were translated from the Greek Septuagint (LXX), except for 2 Esdras, which was translated from the Latin Vulgate. In 1769, the Oxford edition, which excluded the Apocrypha, became the standard text and is the text which is reproduced almost unchanged in most current printings. The Church of England was among the churches that broke with Rome. The catalyst for this decision was the refusal of the Pope to annul the marriage of Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon, but underlying this was a Tudor nationalist belief that authority over the English Church properly belonged to the English monarchy. In the reign of Henry’s son Edward VI the Church of England underwent further reformation, driven by the conviction that the theology being developed by the theologians of the Protestant Reformation was more faithful to the teaching of the Bible and the Early Church than the teaching of those who continued to support the Pope. One of the first things done by the new king was the calling of the Hampton Court Conference in January of 1604 "for the hearing, and for the determining, things pretended to be amiss in the church." Here were assembled bishops, clergymen, and professors, along with four Puritan divines, to consider the complaints of the Puritans. Although Bible revision was not on the agenda, the Puritan president of Corpus Christi College, John Reynolds, "moved his Majesty, that there might be a new translation of the Bible, because those which were allowed in the reigns of Henry the eighth, and Edward the sixth, were corrupt and not answerable to the truth of the Original." http://www.av1611.org/kjv/kjvhist.html Reguardless of the claims here we have our current Bible from the Protestant movement away from the Catholic church ...Translated from the original manuscripts. The catholic Bible is not the same as there were books added to it I assume the Pope approved this adding of a few books to there own Bibles to try to make it their own but it was nothing but a decision of a men who were in charge of the that church alone ....

 

[Sir Knight]

I can cut & paste for ya as well ...

One of the first things one notices when one compares a Protestant Bible with a Catholic or Orthodox edition, is how much thinner the Protestant Bible is. This thinness has nothing to do with smaller print or finer paper, but is because seven entire books and significant sections of some other books have been removed from the Old Testament of Protestant Bibles. This seems an amazing thing to be done by people who claim to love and revere the Bible.How did This Happen? Most people know that Martin Luther translated the Holy Bible into German, making it more widely available to the general reader. Luther's Bible was by no means the first German translation. It was, however, enormously successful. Martin Luther opposed many of the ancient teachings of the Church. But how could he convince people that the historic church was wrong in its beliefs, and that he was right? He needed an authority that he could appeal to, and claim was higher than that of the Universal Church. He seized upon the Bible, introducing a new doctrine, Sola Scriptura, which said that Scripture Alone could be used to define Christian doctrine. The ancient teachings,and Apostolic tradition of the Church could then be discarded as of no value whatsoever. Authority But what gave the Bible its authority? Jesus did not leave us the Bible. The NewTestament books were not written until many years after his death. The Old Testament did exist, but its individual books were kept as separate scrolls and not bound together. Books as we know them, with bound and turnable pages, were "new technology" unknown in the 1st Century, They did not come into use until the 4th Century. In fact the Bible as we know it dates from the Council of Rome, called by Pope Damasus in 382 AD, which decided on the number and order of the books that were to be accepted as Scripture. This was considered final by all the churches until 1520. The Bible therefore did not precede the Church, it was a creation of the Church. Luther's Next Problem Another problem immediately arose for Luther. Although many of his teachings (and those of the other Reformers) could be backed up from certain Bible passages, read in isolation, other Bible Books clearly refuted them. Luther, however, wanted a bible that agreed totally with his teachings. He disliked books in both the Old and New Testaments that disagreed with his teachings. He particularly disliked the New Testament Book of James, which condemned his teaching on Salvation by Faith Alone, and the Old Testament Book of Maccabees, which advocated Prayer for the Dead, and therefore could be used to justify the doctrine of Purgatory. He called the Book of James the "Epistle of Straw." Cutting Down the Bible. Luther therefore took the golden opportunity of his translation of the Bible into German to try to cut certain Books out of the Canon of Scripture. Of James he said, "I will not have him in my Bible in the number of truly principal works." He didn't dare remove books from the Bible entirely - that was too big a step for even him to take. What he did was to take them out of their accepted places in the Bible, and put them in a separate section, which he termed the Apocrypha. These books, he said, were not inspired by God, though they contained "many good sayings." (Luther’s Works, 35, 397) From the Old Testament he removed the Books of Judith, Tobit, 1 Maccabees 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus and Baruch, as well as Esther and part of the Book of Daniel. From the New Testament he removed the Books of Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation. What Authority Had He For This? None. One would have expected that the modification of the Bible, which all Christians hold as the highest authority, would have required at least a Council of the Church. But no such Council was held. Cleverly, Luther did not remove the books entirely, he merely sidelined them. In fact his fellow Protestants balked at removing books from the New Testament, particularly since there was no other reason for their removal than that they contradicted Luther's views. The four New Testament Books that Luther had placed in the Apocrypha, were reinserted in future Protestant Bibles, along with most of Esther. But if Luther had had his way, Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation would not be in Protestant Bibles. Seven Old Testament Books, however, remained excluded from Protestant Bibles. Initially the seven Books continued to be placed in a section called the Apocrypha. But since it was cheaper to print bibles without them, the seven books were slowly dropped altogether. By the 19th Century, the vast majority of Protestant Bibles did not carry the seven Books at all. Protestants began to get used to not seeing these Books in their Bibles, and to imagine that their Bibles were perfectly complete without them. In this way Catholics came to have a Bible of 73 books, and most Protestants a Bible of 66 books. Perhaps it should cause some misgivings to Protestant readers that the number of books in their Bibles is such an ill-omened one in terms of Biblical Numerology? So Why Did Protestants continue to exclude the seven Old Testament Books? Because Luther had another argument to use against the Old Testament Books he removed from the Bible - one which his fellow Reformers could support. Distrusting the Latin Vulgate Bible, because it was relied on by the Catholic Church, Luther decided to translate his Bible into German from the Original languages. The earliest forms of the New Testament writings were in Greek, so Luther happily translated his New Testament from Greek. It was known that most of the Old Testament had originally been written in Hebrew. So Luther wanted to translate his German Old Testament from the Hebrew texts. In this he was following St Jerome, who had sought out old Hebrew manuscripts to produce the Latin Vulgate Bible in 406 AD. However, when Luther obtained Hebrew manuscripts from the Jews of his time, he found that the seven Books in question were not in their Canon of Scripture. This strengthened his resolve to remove the Books. The Jews, he argued, were the Guardians of the Old Testament, so he would use their Old Testament. Wasn't This A Good Decision? Many thought so at the time. Even St Jerome had wanted to follow the Jewish Canon of his time, but his fellow Christians had insisted on the full Canon. So Were the Seven Books a Later, Christian Addition to the Jewish Old Testament? Not at all. The oldest existing versions of the Jewish Old Testament include the Seven Books. It is from these versions that the early Christian Scriptures were made. The best, oldest and most complete version of the Jewish Old Testament we know today is called The Septuagint, and this includes the books that Luther deleted. SO WHY DOESN'T EVERYONE ACCEPT THIS? Because the Septuagint is written in Greek, not Hebrew. The Septuagint was translated between 300 and 200 BC for the growing community of Greek speaking Jews who lived in Egypt, Palestine, and around the Mediterranean. Many ancient copies are still in existence, and it formed the Old Testament text of the earliest Christian Bibles. Our names for the Old Testament books, (Genesis, Exodus etc.) come from the Greek Septuagint, not the Hebrew. What About the Original Hebrew? That is where the problem arises. The "original" Hebrew text no longer exists. When Bibles claim to be translated from the "Original Hebrew", they are being somewhat misleading, since the oldest existing Hebrew texts of the Old Testament date back only to around 1000 AD. These are the Masoretic texts used by the Jews of the diaspora. It is these relatively late texts that lack the Seven Books. Why Are There No Earlier Hebrew Texts? The main reason why earlier Hebrew texts do not exist is that the Jews tended to recopy their scriptures when they grew worn, and then bury the original, which soon decayed. Therefore we have nothing like a Hebrew text which goes back to the time of Christ. We do have some earlier fragments, discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls, but there is only one full book and a few disjointed fragments of all the rest. Which is the Most Accurate Version? Luther, and most of the translators who followed him assumed that the Hebrew texts guarded by the Jews must be more authentic than either the Greek Septuagint translation or Jerome's Latin translation. Therefore most modern Bibles are based on the Hebrew Masoretic texts - which exclude the Seven Books. However, with improvements in Bible scholarship, that assumption has been changing. Many people had been worried that the quotations of Old Testament Scripture in the New Testament were often slightly different to the versions in the Old Testament, translated from the Hebrew texts. Yet when these quotations were compared with the Greek Language Septuagint version, the wording matched far more closely. It became more and more apparent that the writers of the New Testament had used the Septuagint Version of the Old Testament as their scriptures, rather than the Masoretic version. So too, the ancient Hebrew manuscripts found at Qumran (The Dead Sea Scrolls), generally agreed more closely with the Septuagint than they do with the current Masoretic Hebrew texts. The Septuagint is thus witness to an older Hebrew manuscript tradition. Close examination of the Masoretic Hebrew texts also revealed a good number of errors and garbled verses that seemed to have crept into the Hebrew texts through constant recopying. Although the Jewish copyists had taken great pains to keep their copies accurate, mistakes had clearly crept in. It was clear that the once-despised Greek Septuagint version was the more accurate text. Lets look at a couple of verses:

• 2 Chronicles 9:25, says that Solomon had 4,000 stalls for horses, But 1 Kings 4:26, in the Hebrew translation says he had 40,000 The Septuagint translations of both verses agree on 4,000.
• In the Hebrew translation of 1 Kings 11, verses 2 and 3 have Jeroboam returning to face Rehoboam at Shechem, then returning again, seemingly for the first time in verse 20. The Septuagint omits verses 2 and 3, which the Hebrew text seems to have repeated in error from 2 Chronicles 10: 2 and 3.
• 1 Kings 10.14: The weight of gold received annually by Solomon amounted to six hundred and sixty six talents of gold 15 besides what tolls and foreign trade... brought in. (Septuagint) 1 Kings 10.14: The weight of gold received annually by Solomon amounted to six hundred and sixty six talents of gold 15 besides what men and foreign trade... brought in. (Hebrew)
• Sometimes meanings have been strained in an attempt to make sense of the Hebrew verses: In Jeremiah 11.15 The Septuagint places the word vows, where the Masoretic Hebrew places many. The Revised Standard Version uses the Septuagint:
• What right has my beloved in my house, when she has done vile deeds? Can vows and sacrificial flesh avert your doom? Can you then exult? RSV
• Other versions attempt the Hebrew with varying success, and meaning:
• "What is my beloved doing in my temple as she works out her evil schemes with many? Can consecrated meat avert your punishment? When you engage in your wickedness, then you rejoice. " NIV
• "What right has My beloved in My house When she has done many vile deeds? Can the sacrificial flesh take away from you your disaster, So that you can rejoice?'' NASB
• What hath my beloved to do in mine house, seeing she hath wrought lewdness with many, and the holy flesh is passed from thee? when thou doest evil, then thou rejoicest. KJB

I think you will agree that the Septuagint is the clearest. Today most modern Bibles still use the Hebrew Text as their base, but correct and amend it using the older Greek Septuagint version. Why Have We Digressed Like This? Because it was necessary to show that the Greek Septuagint text of the Old Testament, which includes the books removed by Luther, is [list type=decimal][*]The oldest existing complete text.[*]The text used by the writers of the New Testament[*]The most accurate text of the Old Testament[*]The text used by the early Christians.[/LIST] So Why Does the Hebrew Text Omit the Seven Books? Because the Masoretic Hebrew text preserved by the Jews in their Synagogues is a text that was selected and codified after Bible times. To be precise the Hebrew scriptures were Revised by rabbis at the Council of Jamnia in Palestine around 90 AD. It was this Council that decided to remove the Seven Books from the Hebrew Canon. Didn't These Rabbis Have the Authority to Decide What was Scripture? For many reasons that is debatable. We need to look at the reasons they made their rulings - on which Protestants depend to justify their abridged Bible. Twenty years earlier the Jews of Palestine had rebelled against Rome. They were defeated by General Tacitus, and in 70 AD, 40 years after the crucifixion of Jesus, they were expelled from Jerusalem, and the Temple destroyed. With the fall of the Temple, the Sanhedrin priesthood were also destroyed, so the Judean survivors were given permission to establish a rabbinical school at Jamnia, near the Mediterranean seacoast. At this time the differences between the Jews who accepted Christ and those who did not were growing deeper and increasingly bitter. The Christian Jews had not joined fully in the revolt against Rome, and many had crossed the Jordan to avoid the conflict. For these and other reasons, the Jews who gathered at Jamnia were confined to those Jews who had rejected Christ. To emphasise this, the leader of this group of Rabbis, Gamaliel II, introduced a prayer containing eighteen curses against those Jews who became Christians. This prayer had to be recited by all Jews who joined them. It is very clear then that the rabbis who gathered at Jamnia were both embittered, and anti-Christian. Within a few years they were to back two false Messiahs, namely Bar Kokba and Lukuas-Andreas, who led them into fatal revolts against the Emperors Trajan and Hadrian. After the last of these revolts, all Jews were expelled from the Holy Land. Hebrew was already a dead language, the Jews of that time spoke Aramaic or Greek. Yet Hebrew scriptures were approved at the expense of the Greek Septuagint that was quoted by Christians. The Council also rejected books that contained doctrines they disliked, and all books written since the time of Ezra. In view of this, Protestants need to ask themselves, why they choose to back the scriptural discernment of this group of Rabbis, who rejected Christ, supported two false Messiahs, and immediately led their followers to further disaster. Do they really think this group was guided by the Holy Spirit to a greater extent than the Jews who followed Christ and who relied on ALL the Old Testament books? But I've Been Told That the "Apocrypha" are Never Quoted in the New Testament. This is something that Fundamentalist Protestants often claim. Unfortunately for their arguments, it isn't true. See below: Heb 11:35, "...Others were tortured, refusing to accept release, that they might find a better resurrection." The only place in the O.T. that you will find reference to that is 2 Macc 7:1-29. The first half of Heb 11:35 is found in 1 Kings 17:23 and 2 Kings 4:36. Heb 11:38, "They wandered in deserts and mountains..." This is found in 1 Macc 2:28-30 and 2 Macc 5:27. Jn 10:22, "Now there took place at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication..." The inauguration of this feast is found in 1Macc 4:36 & 52-59. Jn 14:23, "...If anyone love Me, he will keep My word..." This is in Sir 2:18. Rom 9:21, " is not the potter master of his clay..." Found in Wis 15:71Pet 1:6-7, "...gold which is tried by fire..." See Wis 3:5-6Rom 1:20-23, "For since the creation of the world..." Found in Wis 13:1-7Mt 7:12, Lk 6:31, "...all that you wish men to do to you, even so do you also to them..." Extension of Tob 4:15 Lk 25 35-36, "I was hungry and you gave me food....I needed clothes and you clothed me." Based on Tob 4:16. Rev 21:18, "And the material of its wall was jasper; but the city itself was pure gold, like pure glass." See Tob 13 end.Mt 13:43, "Then the just will shine forth..." Found in Wis 3:7Mt 27:42, "...if He is the King of Israel, let Him come down now from the cross..." See Wis 2:18-20. Lk 24:4, "...two men stood by them in dazzling raiment." Found in 2 Macc 3:26. Rom 11:33, "...How inscrutable are His judgments and how unsearchable are His ways." Found in Judith 8:14. 1 Cor 10:20, "...they sacrifice to demons, not to God..." Found in Baruch 4:7. Removing books from the Bible is a serious matter, and is specifically condemned in Revelation 22.19. When the authority for this removal depends specifically upon those who rejected the Christian message, perhaps it is time to question the basis of this change.

... (Source).

 

[n2thelight]

So, Sir Knight Why is there not one of these books quoted from in the New Testament?

 

[Sir Knight]

Not one? How about OVER a dozen? Look directly above you and you'll see 17 examples (there might even be more) of where they ARE quoted in the NT. Obviously, you read only what you want to read and then go around proclaiming false conclusions.

 

[n2thelight]

What's wrong with the quotes below,and you tell me how can you follow man..... Salvation Only Through Mary The foundation of all our confidence is found in the Virgin Mary. God has committed to her the treasury of all good things, in order that everyone may know that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation. For this is His will: that we obtain everything through Mary. Sweet heart of Mary, be my salvation! Pope Pius IX For, since it is the will of Divine Providence that we should have the God-Man through Mary, there is no other way for us to receive Christ except from her hands. Pope Pius X He will not taste death forever who, in his dying moments, has recourse to the Blessed Virgin Mary. What will it cost you to save us? Has not Jesus placed in your hands all the treasures of His grace and mercy? You sit crowned as Queen at the right hand of your Son: your dominion reaches as far as the heavens, and to you are subject the earth and all creatures dwelling thereon. Your dominion reaches even down into the abyss of Hell, and you alone O Mary, save us from the hands of Satan. Pope Pius XI Nothing comes to us except through the mediation of Mary, for such is the will of God. O Virgin Most Holy, no one abounds in the knowledge of God except through thee; no one O Mother of God, attains salvation except through thee! Every one of the multitudes, therefore, whom the evil of calamitous circumstances has stolen away from Catholic unity, must be born again to Christ by that same Mother whom God has endowed with a never-failing fertility to bring forth a holy people. Pope Leo XIIIMary, not one of thy devout servants has ever perished; may I, too, be saved! Pope Benedict XVSalvation Only Through The Catholic Church Outside this Church there is no salvation and no remission of sins. Pope Boniface VIIIWe believe with our hearts and confess with our lips but one Church, not that of heretics, but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, outside of which we believe that no one is saved. Pope Innocent IIIHe who is separated from the Catholic Church will not have life. He who is separated from the body of the Catholic Church, however praiseworthy his conduct may seem otherwise, will never enjoy eternal life, and the wrath of God remains on him by reason of the crime of which he is guilty in living separated from Christ�. All those who are separated from the holy universal Church will not be saved. Pope Gregory XVI It must be held as a matter of faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church no one can be saved, that the Church is the only Ark of Salvation, and that whoever does not enter it will perish in the Flood. It is a sin to believe that there is salvation outside the Catholic Church! You must indeed see to it that the faithful have fixed firmly in their minds the absolute necessity of the Catholic faith for attaining salvation. Protestantism is the Great Revolt against God. Pope Pius IX Those outside the Church do not possess the Holy Ghost. The Catholic Church alone is the Body of Christ... and if separated from the Body of Christ he is not one of His members, nor is he fed by His Spirit. Pope Paul VINo one, even if he pours out his blood for the name of Christ, can be saved unless he remains within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church. Pope Eugene IVSalvation Only Through Popes We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. Pope Boniface VIII Into this fold of Jesus Christ no man may enter unless he be led by the Sovereign Pontiff, and only if they be united to him can men be saved. Pope John XXIII Those who are obstinate toward the authority of the Church and the Roman Pontiff... cannot obtain eternal salvation. Pope Pius IXTo summarize, Roman Pontiffs throughout history have shut off the kingdom of heaven from men by proclaiming a false gospel. These destructive heresies have sent millions to their graves with a false hope. One day they will come before Jesus Christ at the Great White Throne Judgment and realize they were deceived about life�s most important decision�whom will I trust for eternal life. They were duped into trusting men rather than obeying God�s Word. "It is better to take refuge in the Lord than to trust in man" (Psalm 118:8). "Do not trust in princes, in mortal man, in whom there is no salvation" (Psalm 146:3). "Cursed is the one who trusts in man... but blessed is the man who trusts in the Lord" (Jeremiah 17:5-7). All pope quotes are found in The Apostolic Digest, Sacred Heart Press, Irving, TX, 1987 And you say I should follow this....Please!!!

 

[Diana]

Thanks! My bad! I forgot about the word "Eiscopoi" The Presbyterios is the Priest. The Pope is higher than the priest. And then there's the deacons.

 

[Christina]

Excellent N2 And sir knight in answer to your remark I can cut & paste for ya as well ... the difference is mine is common real history available anywhere to anyone .....yours is from your church view alone ... So with prejudiced ...If it were up to the Catholic church common man would never have access to scripture so they could control all thought ...as history has proven .. it was a death penalty to say the earth was round ...or the sun, not the earth was the center of the galaxie ...

 

[Sir Knight]

[quote name='n2thelight;74610]What's wrong with the quotes below' date='and you tell me how can you follow man..... [FONT=Arial']Salvation Only Through Mary[/FONT] The foundation of all our confidence is found in the Virgin Mary. God has committed to her the treasury of all good things, in order that everyone may know that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation. For this is His will: that we obtain everything through Mary. Sweet heart of Mary, be my salvation! Pope Pius IX For, since it is the will of Divine Providence that we should have the God-Man through Mary, there is no other way for us to receive Christ except from her hands. Pope Pius X He will not taste death forever who, in his dying moments, has recourse to the Blessed Virgin Mary. What will it cost you to save us? Has not Jesus placed in your hands all the treasures of His grace and mercy? You sit crowned as Queen at the right hand of your Son: your dominion reaches as far as the heavens, and to you are subject the earth and all creatures dwelling thereon. Your dominion reaches even down into the abyss of Hell, and you alone O Mary, save us from the hands of Satan. Pope Pius XI Nothing comes to us except through the mediation of Mary, for such is the will of God. O Virgin Most Holy, no one abounds in the knowledge of God except through thee; no one O Mother of God, attains salvation except through thee! Every one of the multitudes, therefore, whom the evil of calamitous circumstances has stolen away from Catholic unity, must be born again to Christ by that same Mother whom God has endowed with a never-failing fertility to bring forth a holy people. Pope Leo XIIIMary, not one of thy devout servants has ever perished; may I, too, be saved! Pope Benedict XVSalvation Only Through The Catholic Church Outside this Church there is no salvation and no remission of sins. Pope Boniface VIIIWe believe with our hearts and confess with our lips but one Church, not that of heretics, but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, outside of which we believe that no one is saved. Pope Innocent IIIHe who is separated from the Catholic Church will not have life. He who is separated from the body of the Catholic Church, however praiseworthy his conduct may seem otherwise, will never enjoy eternal life, and the wrath of God remains on him by reason of the crime of which he is guilty in living separated from Christ�. All those who are separated from the holy universal Church will not be saved. Pope Gregory XVI It must be held as a matter of faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church no one can be saved, that the Church is the only Ark of Salvation, and that whoever does not enter it will perish in the Flood. It is a sin to believe that there is salvation outside the Catholic Church! You must indeed see to it that the faithful have fixed firmly in their minds the absolute necessity of the Catholic faith for attaining salvation. Protestantism is the Great Revolt against God. Pope Pius IX Those outside the Church do not possess the Holy Ghost. The Catholic Church alone is the Body of Christ... and if separated from the Body of Christ he is not one of His members, nor is he fed by His Spirit. Pope Paul VINo one, even if he pours out his blood for the name of Christ, can be saved unless he remains within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church. Pope Eugene IVSalvation Only Through Popes We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. Pope Boniface VIII Into this fold of Jesus Christ no man may enter unless he be led by the Sovereign Pontiff, and only if they be united to him can men be saved. Pope John XXIII Those who are obstinate toward the authority of the Church and the Roman Pontiff... cannot obtain eternal salvation. Pope Pius IXTo summarize, Roman Pontiffs throughout history have shut off the kingdom of heaven from men by proclaiming a false gospel. These destructive heresies have sent millions to their graves with a false hope. One day they will come before Jesus Christ at the Great White Throne Judgment and realize they were deceived about life�s most important decision�whom will I trust for eternal life. They were duped into trusting men rather than obeying God�s Word. "It is better to take refuge in the Lord than to trust in man" (Psalm 118:8). "Do not trust in princes, in mortal man, in whom there is no salvation" (Psalm 146:3). "Cursed is the one who trusts in man... but blessed is the man who trusts in the Lord" (Jeremiah 17:5-7). All pope quotes are found in The Apostolic Digest, Sacred Heart Press, Irving, TX, 1987 And you say I should follow this....Please!!![/QUOTE]What is your source for these quotes that you attribute to Pope Pius XI? Looking through the encyclicals produced by Pope Pius XI via the Apostolic Digest, I do not see them anywhere. Unless it is from an official Catholic source, I need to question whether they were actually made by him. Please share with us exactly which encyclicals they came from.With regards to "No Salvation Outside the Church", Augustine of Hippo stated ... When we speak of within and without in relation to the Church, it is the position of the heart that we must consider, not that of the body. . . All who are within [the Church] in heart are saved in the unity of the ark (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 5:28[39] [A.D. 400]). (notice that I provided an official reference source for this quote) With regards to "The Assumption of Mary", John the Theologian stated ... The Lord said to his Mother, "Let your heart rejoice and be glad. For every favor and every gift has been given to you from my Father in heaven and from me and from the Holy Spirit. Every soul that calls upon your name shall not be ashamed, but shall find mercy and comfort and support and confidence, both in the world that now is and in that which is to come, in the presence of my Father in the heavens". . . And from that time forth all knew that the spotless and precious body had been transferred to paradise (The Dormition of Mary [A.D. 400]).With regards to "Mary the Mother of God", Cyril of Alexandria stated ... I have been amazed that some are utterly in doubt as to whether or not the holy Virgin is able to be called the Mother of God. For if our Lord Jesus Christ is God, how should the holy Virgin who bore him not be the Mother of God? (Letter to the Monks of Egypt 1 [A.D. 427]).

 

[Sir Knight]

Again, you are making a strawman argument with your hidden reference to Galileo. If you took the time to research the matter, you would know that the Polish astronomer, Nicholas Copernicus, who died (May 24, 1543) decades before Galileo was even born (February 15, 1564), PUBLICLY said the exact same thing ... that the earth revolved around the sun and the Church didn't have any issues with it. As a matter of fact, he received a Catholic funeral with full honors.Galileo got into trouble because he said that the bible was wrong. The Church held both could be correct because scripture does not specify either explicitly.

 

[Diana]

[quote name='n2thelight;74610]What's wrong with the quotes below' date='and you tell me how can you follow man..... [B'] [/B]Salvation Only Through Mary The foundation of all our confidence is found in the Virgin Mary. God has committed to her the treasury of all good things, in order that everyone may know that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation. For this is His will: that we obtain everything through Mary. Sweet heart of Mary, be my salvation! Pope Pius IX For, since it is the will of Divine Providence that we should have the God-Man through Mary, there is no other way for us to receive Christ except from her hands. Pope Pius X He will not taste death forever who, in his dying moments, has recourse to the Blessed Virgin Mary. What will it cost you to save us? Has not Jesus placed in your hands all the treasures of His grace and mercy? You sit crowned as Queen at the right hand of your Son: your dominion reaches as far as the heavens, and to you are subject the earth and all creatures dwelling thereon. Your dominion reaches even down into the abyss of Hell, and you alone O Mary, save us from the hands of Satan. Pope Pius XI Nothing comes to us except through the mediation of Mary, for such is the will of God. O Virgin Most Holy, no one abounds in the knowledge of God except through thee; no one O Mother of God, attains salvation except through thee! Every one of the multitudes, therefore, whom the evil of calamitous circumstances has stolen away from Catholic unity, must be born again to Christ by that same Mother whom God has endowed with a never-failing fertility to bring forth a holy people. Pope Leo XIIIMary, not one of thy devout servants has ever perished; may I, too, be saved! Pope Benedict XV [/QUOTE] This is how we understand Mary in Catholic doctrine: Let's look at an analogy. Let's say a mother is baking a cake. She has all of the ingredients - eggs, flower, chocolate, icing, sugar, everything. She starts baking and her 4 year old daughter comes and asks if she can help. Would any parent refuse their child's loving request? Of course not. So the child helps - she cracks the eggs, measures the flower, helps to mix, and licks the spoon. That child would be a co-baker. Is the child a baker? No. Could the mother have done this on her own? Of course. Did the mother need anything from the child? Certainly not. But did the child do something useful, namely the will of her parent? Yes. Could the cake have been made without the child? Probably, but the fact remains that it wasn't.So it is with Mary. Out of loving kindness, God allowed one of His children to help "bake the cake" of salvation. Through Mary, God became flesh. He who needed nothing condescended to need her. He who needs no permission asked the permission of Mary, and would not do His will until it was given (Luke 1:38). He who created all flesh allowed Mary to be the source of His flesh. If Christ was dedicated to a life of suffering, so was she. After hearing Simeon's prophesy, every pulse Mary felt in her child's wrist would be like the echo of an oncomming hammer. Every bruise He would get would strike in her soul the knowledge of the suffering He was to endure. When Christ was crucified, a sword pierced Mary's heart to such a degree that it is only fitting to call her the Queen of Martyrs. No one has ever loved Christ like Mary, and no one ever will. What love is there to compare to a mother's love for her child?It has been said above that Catholics "guild the lilly" when it comes to the Blessed Mother. Not so. How could any glory we give her be more than the glory which God has given her? (See Luke 1:46-48). Is she to be worshiped? Never. We never forget that there is one God, and to Him alone is all worship due. Is she to be honored above all creation? Yes, but only because God has chosen to honor her, and we are called to be imitators of God.

Salvation Only Through The Catholic Church

This phrase has always been misinterpreted. "Extra ecclesia nulla salus" literally means "Outside the Church there is no salvation." When taken out of context, it sounds very arrogant, patronizing, and sectarion. The phrasee does NOT mean that only Catholics can go to heaven, nor does it mean that non-Catholics are automatically condemed to hell. It means that only the Catholic Church can provide what is needed for salvation in that she alone has the fullness of revealed truth, since she embraces both Sacred Scripture (Bible) and Sacred Apostolic Tradition. Religions which profess Scripture alone (Sola Scriptura) are limiting themselves to one half of divine revelation. The Catholic Church offers all seven sacraments whereaas many Protestant churches only have two sacraments. Early in the 20th century, Father Leonard Feney, in Boston, taught a radical form of extra ecclesia nulla salus which amounted to saying "If you're not a baptized and registered Catholic, you're going to hell." His extreme interpretation focused on membership alone and rejected the validity of baptism by blood and baptism by desire, which the Catholic Church has always taught are valid as baptism by water. He was excommunicated in 1949 by the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church believed in the "Baptism of blood" and "Baptism of Desire," which is explained in the Catechism of the Catholic Church #1258 and in #1260. The Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith stated : #20 The Church is the 'universal saccrament of salvation'....[but] for those who are not formally and visibly members of the Church, salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church, but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation." [Dominus Iesus]

Salvation Only Through PopesWe declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

Pope Boniface VIIIInto this fold of Jesus Christ no man may enter unless he be led by the Sovereign Pontiff, and only if they be united to him can men be saved. Pope John XXIIIThose who are obstinate toward the authority of the Church and the Roman Pontiff... cannot obtain eternal salvation. Pope Pius IX

Salvation through the Pope???? This is new to me. We have never taught that "salvation comes from the Pope." We only teach that the Pope has infallibility ONLY in matters of the faith, but we have never said that he is impeccible. As a matter of fact, history shows that we had some bad popes. Our Popes were never impeccible due to the fact of some of the things they did. But this has nothing to do with "infallibility," which is very different.

 

[Diana]

in heart are saved in the unity of the ark (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 5:28[39] [A.D. 400]). (notice that I provided an official reference source for this quote) With regards to "The Assumption of Mary", John the Theologian stated ... The Lord said to his Mother, "Let your heart rejoice and be glad. For every favor and every gift has been given to you from my Father in heaven and from me and from the Holy Spirit. Every soul that calls upon your name shall not be ashamed, but shall find mercy and comfort and support and confidence, both in the world that now is and in that which is to come, in the presence of my Father in the heavens". . . And from that time forth all knew that the spotless and precious body had been transferred to paradise (The Dormition of Mary [A.D. 400]).With regards to "Mary the Mother of God", Cyril of Alexandria stated ... I have been amazed that some are utterly in doubt as to whether or not the holy Virgin is able to be called the Mother of God. For if our Lord Jesus Christ is God, how should the holy Virgin who bore him not be the Mother of God? (Letter to the Monks of Egypt 1 [A.D. 427]).

He got it from an anti-Catholic website. I found it on the Internet.

 

[soulja boy]

If you looked up the Greek word for "Elder," you would have known it is "presbyteros." Translated into English it means "Bishop" or "priests." Our priests are also called "presbyters." And so when St. Peter said that he is also an Elder, it means that he is a bishop (1 Peter 5:1).

I get the feeling that you are out of your depth. You said "If you looked up the Greek word for Elder" THe fact that I told you there are 17 verses which indicate the leadership of the church is by Elders makes it very clear that I have looked up every verse with the word elder in it. The meaning, and here I not interested in the english translation, I prefer the Greek meaning, is older, senior men of the congregation and the word "presbuterous" means government by plural as in the Presbyterian church that is governed by a body of elders.As for your comment that Peter who was an elder meaning he was a bishop is quite fallacious. The word for bishop is "episkope" and that word is not used on this verse so you are indulging in iesegesis. The context is the appointment of Elders plural. There is no indication of a man who sits above the rest in fancy clothes indicating his superiority and who has to be obeyed implicitly.

 

[soulja boy]

I agree, and that's why I called myself a sinner.

If you agree why do you contradict yourself and say that humility is for holy thursday?

 

[soulja boy]

I've modified my signature especially for your benefit.

Thankyou but it is not for my benefit, it is for honesty and integrity.