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!
Well - you just claimed that you don't lie - then you follow it up with another LIE.
The idea that you wouldn't have the Bible in English if not for Protestantism is nonsense. There were MANY books of the Bible translated into English BEFORE the KJV. The Church was never against translating into other languages. This is an historically-bankrupt, anti-Catholic lie.
The Church forbade private translations because of the mess is was causing. There were several attempts to privately translate the Bible which ended up in heretical versions being created.
Do me a favor - stick to the facts - and you won't have to be accused of lying anymore . . .
Matthew 18:17 says the opposite. Jesus Himself says "...If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church;" He does not say, "tell it to scripture". Jesus founded a Church which could not function if it was not organized. The Apostles and elders in Acts 15 is an organized hierarchical institution, a template for future councils. The canon of Scripture required an organized hierarchical institution to flower. The numerous controversies and heresies that followed down through the centuries required an organized hierarchical institution to resolve. To listen to Jesus and follow Him without the organized institutional Church is not biblical.This is certainly a faith statement in an organisation. Jesus did not say we listen to the body and follow the body but listen to Jesus and follow Him.
Using definitions changed by 16th century politics as opposed to biblical/historical definitions is the reason why these threads go on for so long. We are not speaking the same language.By this definition you are not following or listening to Jesus.
This is a lie preached by certain 'bible Christians' whose hostility is matched with their ignorance. They constantly distort and misrepresent Vatican 2 and they flood the internet by the billions.In Vatican 2 accepting spiritual authority from other faiths was agreed to.
You are what you read.It is hard not to conclude the church has gone astray.
Apparently - you didn't READ my post #3983, where I laid out the REAL history of what happened with Tyndale - not the homogenized Protestant version. While you're at it - maybe you should ALSO take a look at @Illuminator's postr #3986 for the names and dates of other vernacular translations BEFORE Tyndale AND Wycliffe.Now people don't lie here much because it is too easy for them to be corrected. Most of the time it is a matter of mistaken information. In this case the Church was adamantly opposed to people translating the Bible and distributing them. You might want to look into the history of William Tyndale and Miles Coverdale....1535 William Tyndale was burnt and strangled at "the stake"
John Wycliffe's struggles with the Catholic Church and translation of the Bible occurred in the late 1300's.
The first complete Roman Catholic Bible in English was the Douay–Rheims Bible, of which the New Testament portion was published in Rheims in 1582 and the Old Testament somewhat later in Douay in Gallicant Flanders.
FYI broNow people don't lie here much because it is too easy for them to be corrected. Most of the time it is a matter of mistaken information. In this case the Church was adamantly opposed to people translating the Bible and distributing them. You might want to look into the history of William Tyndale and Miles Coverdale....1535 William Tyndale was burnt and strangled at "the stake"
John Wycliffe's struggles with the Catholic Church and translation of the Bible occurred in the late 1300's.
The first complete Roman Catholic Bible in English was the Douay–Rheims Bible, of which the New Testament portion was published in Rheims in 1582 and the Old Testament somewhat later in Douay in Gallicant Flanders.
lol Historians don't care about Catholics or Protestant propaganda. And since the 50 Bibles of Constantine, people have be writings bits and pieces of the Bible. I was point out some that had some distributions .Apparently - you didn't READ my post #3983, where I laid out the REAL history of what happened with Tyndale - not the homogenized Protestant version. While you're at it - maybe you should ALSO take a look at @Illuminator's postr #3986 for the names and dates of other vernacular translations BEFORE Tyndale AND Wycliffe.
Perhaps, you should go back and take a glance before responding . . .
The entire point here is that you are painting Tyndale to be just an "innocent" guy who did the Lord's work.lol Historians don't care about Catholics or Protestant propaganda. And since the 50 Bibles of Constantine, people have be writings bits and pieces of the Bible. I was point out some that had some distributions .
If you are coming up with a date in your head when the Canon was put together...there is no known agreed upon date. Subsequent ecumenical councils many many years later confirmed it...more than one.The entire point here is that you are painting Tyndale to be just an "innocent" guy who did the Lord's work.
In fact - he did just the opposite by producing a flawed and heretical translation.
By the way - do you even know when the Canon of the Bible was officially declared - and by WHOM?
Time for another history lesson . . .If you are coming up with a date in your head when the Canon was put together...there is no known agreed upon date. Subsequent ecumenical councils many many years later confirmed it...more than one.
Innocent....I love the Catholics but as far as the history of the Catholic hierarchy and the word innocent...you do not want to get those two words to close together something will catch on fire.
Tyndale was a rouge...a man of courage and character. But innocent...I would expect not.
It does not matter what belief system you are attached to....they all have a tendency to rewrite history. That is why they call it beliefs not facts.Time for another history lesson . . .
First of all - there IS an agreed-upon date of when the Canon was officially declared - AND closed.
- The Synod of Rome (382) is where the canon was first formally identified.
- It was confirmed at the Synod of Hippo eleven years later (393).
- At the Council (or Synod) of Carthage (397), it was yet again confirmed. The bishops wrote at the end of their document, "But let Church beyond sea (Rome) be consulted about confirming this canon". There were 44 bishops, including St. Augustine who signed the document.
- 7 years later, in 405, in a letter from Pope Innocent I to Exsuperius, Bishop of Toulouse, he reiterated the canon.
- 14 years after that, at the 2nd Council (Synod) of Carthage (419) the canon was again formally confirmed.
The Canon of Scripture was officially closed at the Council of Trent in the 16th century because of the perversions happening within Protestantism and the random editing and deleting of books from the Canon.
Them's the historical facts . . .
This history isn't "rewritten" - its simply denied by anti-Catholics.It does not matter what belief system you are attached to....they all have a tendency to rewrite history. That is why they call it beliefs not facts.
lol Hey turd head I love Catholics!This history isn't "rewritten" - its simply denied by anti-Catholics.
Every incident, Council and date I gave you can be substantiated.
Ummmm, I hate to break it to you - but as far as Christianity goes - there was ONLY the Catholic Church in the 4th century. All the lists that existed were FROM Catholics.lol Hey turd head I love Catholics!
It is like when Christopher Columbus discovered America....he discovered it for Spain....not the world.
First off there were people there already and several other groups had made trips to the Americas.
The list of favored texts had existed for nearly a century. The ecumenical councils did not select anything, they affirmed a list that already existed. Anything that was done "officially" was for the Catholic Church only.
I hate to break it to you - but as far as Christianity goes - there was ONLY the Catholic ChurchUmmmm, I hate to break it to you - but as far as Christianity goes - there was ONLY the Catholic Church in the 4th century. All the lists that existed were FROM Catholics.
For whom ELSE would this canon be??
This is what I mean when I talk about anti-Catholic revisionism and denial . . .
Once again, my historically-bankrupt friend - as far as Christianity goes - there was ONLY the Catholic Church in the 4th century.I hate to break it to you - but as far as Christianity goes - there was ONLY the Catholic Church
In the 4th century the Catholic Church was still cleaning house....divisions within divisions and fracturing happening. The various Gnostic groups were still a strong presence. The Catholic Church became the largest organized Church, with the muscle of Rome its future was guaranteed....which is very good. But the dream of the "one Church" thing was never fully realized. History and beliefs are always going to butt heads and debating that can only go so far. If your wanting to debate if any other Christians groups existed after the 4th centuries we can do that. But certainly you know of the various Christian groups that the Catholic Church attempted to exterminate.
Once again, my historically-bankrupt friend - as far as Christianity goes - there was ONLY the Catholic Church in the 4th century.
Yes, there were heretical offshoots like the Arians, Nestorians, Donatists, et al - yet they ALL considered themselves to be Catholics.
There simply was NO other Christian Church that existed in the 4th century when the Canon of Scripture was declared in Rome.
There was ONLY the Catholic Church - and an array of heretical sects.
Then perhaps you can give me a list of the genuine Christian Churches that existed alongside the Catholic Church in the 4th century.as far as Christianity goes - there was ONLY the Catholic Church in the 4th century.
lol You are not only funny you are predictable.
Of course there is only one Christian Church in the 4th century....because it is the only Church you recognize. lol
Just like the Baptist that think it is the only true church.
Beware of small bubbles and fantastical beliefs.
The fact is, there were more Christian groups that we can give names to.
There were more varying Christian beliefs than we can document.
Terms like heretical and cult are for the laymen that have a small education on the facts.
From this perspective the world is full of heretics because from the Catholic perspective all Protestants are heretics.
The Catholic Church spent a good part of its time fighting against other Christian religions that they considered heretical.
Surely you are aware of the Cathars and the wars between the Catholics and Protestants....one of them called the 30 year war of the 1600's.
Fanaticism leads to hate, violence, and evil. The trap that the Catholic Church fell in.
Define genuine?Then perhaps you can give me a list of the genuine Christian Churches that existed alongside the Catholic Church in the 4th century.
This should be easy for you . . .
A Christian CHURCH.Define genuine?
Christians that believe in Christ?
A Christian, by definition is a Baptized person who believes in the Trinity, that Christ is both Man and God, was born of a virgin, suffered and died for our sins and rose from the dead and now sits at the right Hand of the Father in Heaven - and believes that He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead.A Christian CHURCH.
Not an offshoot sect like the Gnostics - but a CHURCH.
A Christian, by definition is a Baptized person who believes in the Trinity, that Christ is both Man and God, was born of a virgin, suffered and died for our sins and rose from the dead and now sits at the right Hand of the Father in Heaven - and believes that He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead.