Comments
1 - 20 of 203 Comments Last updated Jan 3, 2014
First Prev
of 11
Next Last
MCOC

Martinsville, VA

#1 Sep 6, 2013
It cannot be proven that the Catholic Church is solely responsible for the gathering and selection of the New Testament books. In fact, it can be shown that the New Testament books were gathered into one volume and were in circulation long before the Catholic Church claims to have taken its action in 390 at the council of Hippo. In the following we list some of the catalogues of the books of the Bible which are given by early Christian writers.

326. Athanasius, bishop at Alexandria, mentions all of the New Testament books.

315-386. Cyril, bishop at Jerusalem, gives a list of all New Testament books except Revelation.

270. Eusebius, bishop at Caesarea, called the Father of ecclesiastical history, gives an account of the persecution of Emperor Diocletian whose edict required that all churches be destroyed and the Scriptures burned. He lists all the books of the New Testament. He was commissioned by Constantine to have transcribed fifty copies of the Bible for use of the churches of Constantinople.

185-254. Origen, born at Alexandria, names all the books of both the Old and New Testaments.

165-220. Clement, of Alexandria, names all the books of the New Testament except Philemon, James, 2 Peter and 3 John. In addition we are told by Eusebius, who had the works of Clement, that he gave explanations and quotations from all the canonical books.

160-240. Turtullian, contemporary of Origen and Clement, mentions all the New Testament books except 2 Peter, James and 2 John.

135-200. Irenaeus, quoted from all New Testament books except Philemon, Jude, James and 3 John.

100-147. Justin Martyr, mentions the Gospels as being four in number and quotes from them and some of the epistles of Paul and Revelation.

Besides the above, the early church fathers have handed down in their writings quotations from all the New Testament books so much so that it is said that the entire New Testament can be reproduced from their writings alone.

Thus, the New Testament books were in existence in their present form at the close of the apostolic age. As a matter of fact, the apostles themselves put their writings into circulation. "And when this letter has been read among you, see that it be read in the church of the Laodiceans also; and that you yourselves read the letter from Laodicea." (Col. 4:16). "I charge you by the Lord that this epistle be read to all the holy brethren." (1 Thess. 5:27). The holy Scriptures were written for all (1 Cor. 1:2; Eph. 1:1) and all will be judged by them in the last day (Rev. 20:12; John 12:48). Jesus said that His Word will abide forever (Matt. 24:35; 1 Pet. 1:23-25).
MCOC

Martinsville, VA

#2 Sep 6, 2013
If the Catholic Church be true then,

1. Why does the Bible condemn clerical dress?(Matt. 23:5-6).
2. Why does the Bible teach against the adoration of Mary?(Luke 11:27-28).
3. Why does the Bible show that all Christians are priests?(1 Pet. 2:5,9).
4. Why does the Bible condemn the observance of special days?(Gal. 4:9-11).
5. Why does the Bible teach that all Christians are saints?(1 Cor. 1:2).
6. Why does the Bible condemn the making and adoration of images?(Ex. 20:4-5).
7. Why does the Bible teach that baptism is immersion instead of pouring?(Col. 2:12).
8. Why does the Bible forbid us to address religious leaders as "father"?(Matt. 23:9).
9. Why does the Bible teach that Christ is the only foundation and not the apostle Peter?(1 Cor. 3:11).
10. Why does the Bible teach that there is one mediator instead of many?(1 Tim. 2:5).
11. Why does the Bible teach that a bishop must be a married man?(1 Tim. 3:2, 4-5).
12. Why is the Bible opposed to the primacy of Peter?(Luke 22:24-27).
13. Why does the Bible oppose the idea of purgatory?(Luke 16:26).
14. Why is the Bible completely silent about infant baptism, instrumental music in worship, indulgences, confession to priests, the rosary, the mass, and many other things in the Catholic Church?
MCOC

Martinsville, VA

#3 Sep 6, 2013
Catholics argue that since the Council of Hippo in 390 A.D. proclaimed which books were actually inspired and placed them in one volume, all are indebted to the Catholic Church for the New Testament and can accept it only on the authority of the Catholic Church. There are several things wrong with this. First, it cannot be proven that the church which held the Council of Hippo in 390 A.D. was the same church which is now known as the Roman Catholic Church. For example, the church of 390 had no crucifixes and images because, "The first mention of Crucifixes are in the sixth century" and "The whole tradition of veneration holy images gradually and naturally developed" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. VII, p. 667). The church of 390 took communion under both kinds because that was the prevailing practice until it was formally abolished in 1416 A.D.(See Lives and Times of the Roman Pontiffs, Vol. I, p. 111). The church of 390 was a church altogether different from the Roman Catholic Church today.

Furthermore, in the proceedings of the Council of Hippo, the bishops did not mention nor give the slightest hint that they were for the first time "officially" cataloging the books of he Bible for the world. It was not until the fourth session of the Council of Trent (1545-1563) that the bishops and high ranking officials of the Catholic Church "officially" cataloged the books they thought should be included in the Bible and bound them upon the consciences of all Catholics.(See Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, pp. 17-18).
MCOC

Martinsville, VA

#4 Sep 6, 2013
It would seem unnecessary for the Catholic Church to make the boastful claim of giving the Bible to the world when both it and so-called Protestantism accept the Bible as a revelation from God. However, it is an attempt to weaken the Bible as the sole authority and to replace it with their man-made church. If it is true that we can accept the Bible only on the basis of the Catholic Church, doesn't that make the Catholic Church superior to the Bible? This is exactly what Catholic officials want men to believe. Their only problem is that their doctrine comes from their own human reasoning rather than from God. Their logic is a classic example of their "circle reasoning." They try to prove the Bible by the church (can accept the Bible only on the basis of the Catholic Church) and prove the church by the Bible ("has ever grounded her doctrines upon it"). Such is absurd reasoning which proves nothing. Either the New Testament is the sole authority or it is not. If it is the New Testament, it cannot be the church, and if it is the church, it cannot be the New Testament.
MCOC

Martinsville, VA

#5 Sep 6, 2013
The Catholic claim of giving the Bible to the world cannot be true because they have not been the sole possessor of the Bible at any time. Some of the most valuable Greek Bibles and Versions have been handed down to us from non-Roman Catholic sources. A notable example of this is the Codex Sinaiticus which was found in the monastery of St. Catherine (of the Greek Orthodox Church) at Mount Sinai in 1844 and is now in the British Museum. It contains all of the books of the New Testament and all but small portions of the Old Testament. Scholars are certain that this manuscript was made early in the fourth century, not later than 350 A.D. This manuscript found by a German scholar named, Tishendorf, who was a Protestant, and this manuscript which is the most complete of all has never been in the hands of the Roman Catholic Church.

Another valuable manuscript that has never been possessed by the Roman Catholic Church is the Codex Alexandrianus. It, too, is now on exhibit in the manuscript room of the British Museum in London. It was a gift from the Patriarch of Constantinople (of the Greek Orthodox Church) to Charles I in 1628. It had been in possession of the Patriarchs for centuries and originally came from Alexandria, Egypt from which it gets its name. Scholars are certain that this manuscript was also made in the fourth century and, along with the Codex Sinaiticus, is thought to be one of the fifty Greek Bibles commissioned to be copied by Constantine.
MCOC

Martinsville, VA

#6 Sep 6, 2013
In the light of the foregoing, the boastful claim of the Roman Catholic Church that it has been the sole guardian and preserver of the sacred Scriptures down to the present, is nothing but pure falsehood. The Bible is not a Catholic book. Catholics did not write it, nor does their doctrines and church meet the description of the doctrine and church of which it speaks. The New Testament was completed before the end of the first century, A.D. The things in it do not correspond to the Catholic Church which hundreds of years after the death of the apostles slowly evolved into what it now is. The Catholic Church is not the original and true church, but a "church" born of many departures and corruptions from the New Testament church. Even if the Catholic Church could prove that it alone is the sole deliverer of the Scriptures to man today, it still remains that the Catholic Church is not following the Bible and is contrary to the Bible. Furthermore, even if the Catholic Church could show conclusively that it alone is responsible for gathering the books, it does not prove that the Catholic Church is infallible, nor does it prove that it is the author of the Bible. God has at times used evil agencies to accomplish His purpose (Jer. 27:6-8; 43:10; Hab. 1:5-11; John 11:49-52).
MCOC

Martinsville, VA

#7 Sep 6, 2013
The Catholic Church argues that since one of its councils in 390 selected the sacred books, one can accept them only on the basis of its authority. We have answered by showing:(1) The Bible is inspired and has authority, not because a church declared it so but because God made it so.(2) Jesus did not teach the people in His day that they could accept the Old Testament Scriptures only on the basis of those who placed the books into one volume.(3) It is a mere assumption that the Council of Hippo in 390 was a Council of the church which is now the Roman Catholic Church.(4) God did not give councils the authority to select His sacred books, nor does He expect men to receive His books only on the basis of councils.(5) The Catholic Church is not solely responsible for the gathering and selection of the New Testament books.(6) The Catholic Church has not been the sole possessor of the Bible at any time.(7) Even if it could be proven that the Catholic Church gathered the books into one volume, it still remains that it is not following the Bible today.
MCOC

Martinsville, VA

#8 Sep 6, 2013
The Protestant Bible contains 66 Books (39 in the Old Testament and 27 in the New). The Bible that the Catholic Church claims to have given us contains 7 more Old Testament books than the Protestant Bible (and some additional verses in the books of Daniel and Esther).

These 7 extra books Catholics call the “Deuterocanonical” books. Protestants usually refer to them as the “Apocrypha,” and they do not consider them to be inspired, but Catholics do. But there are some problems with these books that we will deal with only briefly:

1) These books were not accepted by the Jews, and it was the Jews who knew the canon best because they were the ones who wrote the Old Testament.

2) Some of these books contain historical and geographical errors. Do we really want to accept the “inspiration” of a book which is not even reliable in worldly matters?

3) Some of the books teach doctrines which contradict the rest of the Scriptures.

4) There are a number of people throughout church history who denied the inspiration of the Apocrypha. One is Jerome, the very person who translated the Vulgate Bible (which the Catholic Church embraces). Catholic Cardinal Cajetan, who opposed Martin Luther and his teachings, also believed that the Apocrypha should not be used to confirm matters of faith, but only for edification. We could also mention Pope Gregory the Great, Athanasius (the bishop of Alexandria) and many others who believed that (at least some of) the Apocryphal books were not canonical.
MCOC

Martinsville, VA

#9 Sep 6, 2013
If the Catholic Church really did give us the Bible, then why do so many of its teachings either contradict the Scriptures, or cannot be found within its pages (e.g., doctrines like confession to a priest, Mary’s sinless birth and life, Mary’s Assumption into Heaven, indulgences, Purgatory, the Treasury of Merit, the office of pope, praying to saints, etc., etc.)? Interestingly, we find none of these in the Bible they claim to have given us.

When it comes to spiritual deception the most dangerous lies are the ones that contain a certain amount of truth mixed in. And that is the case here. The “certain amount of truth mixed in” is that the Catholic Church was used, to some extent, in preserving and copying the Bible. But the Catholic Church did not “give us the Bible.” GOD did. It is HIS Word given to His people… the Old Testament given through the Jewish prophets, and the New Testament given through the Apostles and their close associates. The universal church of the New Testament just recognized the inspired Scriptures… it did not create or establish them.
MCOC

Martinsville, VA

#10 Sep 6, 2013
There is no one person or group that is responsible for giving us the Bible. Just as the books of the Old Testament were, little by little, accumulated over the years by God’s people who recognized His Spirit moving in His prophets (and eventually writing it down)… it was the same with the apostles and the New Testament. It was a gradual process with many believers involved over time. And just as the Jews recognized Old Testament Scripture without an infallible authority, it was the same with the early Christians.

Although the councils did help, to a certain extent, to crystallize the canon in the minds of the early Christians, these councils, for the most part, merely affirmed the books that were already widely accepted. They were simply attempting to make it “official.”

Even though there were some doubts concerning a few of the books that would eventually end up in the canon, there was, collectively, a general consensus among Christians on most of the books. Only a few of them were actually disputed.

It is said that virtually the whole New Testament could be reproduced simply from the writings of the Ante-Nicene church fathers (those who lived before the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D.). So, the early church was already familiar with the canon of Scripture at this time.

In all fairness, the Catholic Church (i.e., the Church of Rome) did have a role in preserving and copying the Scriptures, But this doesn’t mean that “the Bible comes from them.”
MCOC

Martinsville, VA

#11 Sep 6, 2013
Conclusion

When Catholics say that the Catholic Church gave us the Bible, they are in effect saying that this Church (along with its “Tradition”) is the final authority, and that we must submit to them. They are implying that the Bible gets its authority from that Church and only they have the authority to properly interpret it. But this is certainly not true. The universal church recognized the inspired writings. However, the Scriptures are not “church-breathed,” but God-breathed (2 Tim. 3:16-17)

Simply recognizing something (the canon) is not the same thing as being responsible for its existence. The Bible no more owes its existence to the Catholic Church than gravity owes its existence to Sir Isaac Newton.

The idea of the Catholic Church giving the Bible to the world is yet another boastful (but empty) claim coming from the Catholic side. One has to wonder… how many of the Catholic Church’s claims need to be exposed as false, before the “lay Catholic” in the pew will see the light? How many exaggerated claims from his leaders must he endure before he breaks free of the Catholic Church’s shackles? Hopefully, very few.
Mike Peterson

Birmingham, AL

#12 Sep 6, 2013
MCOC wrote:
It cannot be proven that the Catholic Church is solely responsible for the gathering and selection of the New Testament books. In fact, it can be shown that the New Testament books were gathered into one volume and were in circulation long before the Catholic Church claims to have taken its action in 390 at the council of Hippo. In the following we list some of the catalogues of the books of the Bible which are given by early Christian writers.
326. Athanasius, bishop at Alexandria, mentions all of the New Testament books.
315-386. Cyril, bishop at Jerusalem, gives a list of all New Testament books except Revelation.
270. Eusebius, bishop at Caesarea, called the Father of ecclesiastical history, gives an account of the persecution of Emperor Diocletian whose edict required that all churches be destroyed and the Scriptures burned. He lists all the books of the New Testament. He was commissioned by Constantine to have transcribed fifty copies of the Bible for use of the churches of Constantinople.
185-254. Origen, born at Alexandria, names all the books of both the Old and New Testaments.
165-220. Clement, of Alexandria, names all the books of the New Testament except Philemon, James, 2 Peter and 3 John. In addition we are told by Eusebius, who had the works of Clement, that he gave explanations and quotations from all the canonical books.
160-240. Turtullian, contemporary of Origen and Clement, mentions all the New Testament books except 2 Peter, James and 2 John.
135-200. Irenaeus, quoted from all New Testament books except Philemon, Jude, James and 3 John.
100-147. Justin Martyr, mentions the Gospels as being four in number and quotes from them and some of the epistles of Paul and Revelation.
Besides the above, the early church fathers have handed down in their writings quotations from all the New Testament books so much so that it is said that the entire New Testament can be reproduced from their writings alone.
Thus, the New Testament books were in existence in their present form at the close of the apostolic age. As a matter of fact, the apostles themselves put their writings into circulation. "And when this letter has been read among you, see that it be read in the church of the Laodiceans also; and that you yourselves read the letter from Laodicea." (Col. 4:16). "I charge you by the Lord that this epistle be read to all the holy brethren." (1 Thess. 5:27). The holy Scriptures were written for all (1 Cor. 1:2; Eph. 1:1) and all will be judged by them in the last day (Rev. 20:12; John 12:48). Jesus said that His Word will abide forever (Matt. 24:35; 1 Pet. 1:23-25).
You just proved the Council of Rome canonized the Bible.

All these men were Catholic. You proved there was no consensus among the early Christians, Catholics, on what was the inspired and inerrant world of God.

You didn't quote those who thought the Epistle of Barnabas, The Shepard of Hermas, Clements Espistle, The Gospel of Mary, Apocalypse of Peter, Infancy Gospel of James, Gospel of Thomas, Lost Epistle to the Corinthians ,Third Letter to the Corinthians the Dicache and the hundreds of others that some thought belonged.

That is why the Church created the Bible. To end the discussions forever.

Just like your beliefs, you only have part of the Truth

And to top it off, the Bible nowhere says it is the inspired and inerrant written Word Of God.

The Church declared that. No Protestants for 1100 more years.
MCOC

Martinsville, VA

#13 Sep 6, 2013
1. Why does the Bible condemn clerical dress?(Matt. 23:5-6).
2. Why does the Bible teach against the adoration of Mary?(Luke 11:27-28).
3. Why does the Bible show that all Christians are priests?(1 Pet. 2:5,9).
4. Why does the Bible condemn the observance of special days?(Gal. 4:9-11).
5. Why does the Bible teach that all Christians are saints?(1 Cor. 1:2).
6. Why does the Bible condemn the making and adoration of images?(Ex. 20:4-5).
7. Why does the Bible teach that baptism is immersion instead of pouring?(Col. 2:12).
8. Why does the Bible forbid us to address religious leaders as "father"?(Matt. 23:9).
9. Why does the Bible teach that Christ is the only foundation and not the apostle Peter?(1 Cor. 3:11).
10. Why does the Bible teach that there is one mediator instead of many?(1 Tim. 2:5).
11. Why does the Bible teach that a bishop must be a married man?(1 Tim. 3:2, 4-5).
12. Why is the Bible opposed to the primacy of Peter?(Luke 22:24-27).
13. Why does the Bible oppose the idea of purgatory?(Luke 16:26).
14. Why is the Bible completely silent about infant baptism, instrumental music in worship, indulgences, confession to priests, the rosary, the mass, and many other things in the Catholic Church?

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#14 Sep 6, 2013
MCOC wrote:
1. Why does the Bible condemn clerical dress?(Matt. 23:5-6).
2. Why does the Bible teach against the adoration of Mary?(Luke 11:27-28).
3. Why does the Bible show that all Christians are priests?(1 Pet. 2:5,9).
4. Why does the Bible condemn the observance of special days?(Gal. 4:9-11).
5. Why does the Bible teach that all Christians are saints?(1 Cor. 1:2).
6. Why does the Bible condemn the making and adoration of images?(Ex. 20:4-5).
7. Why does the Bible teach that baptism is immersion instead of pouring?(Col. 2:12).
8. Why does the Bible forbid us to address religious leaders as "father"?(Matt. 23:9).
9. Why does the Bible teach that Christ is the only foundation and not the apostle Peter?(1 Cor. 3:11).
10. Why does the Bible teach that there is one mediator instead of many?(1 Tim. 2:5).
11. Why does the Bible teach that a bishop must be a married man?(1 Tim. 3:2, 4-5).
12. Why is the Bible opposed to the primacy of Peter?(Luke 22:24-27).
13. Why does the Bible oppose the idea of purgatory?(Luke 16:26).
14. Why is the Bible completely silent about infant baptism, instrumental music in worship, indulgences, confession to priests, the rosary, the mass, and many other things in the Catholic Church?
What tiresome tripe...over and over and over.

Number 15. Why is the Bible completely silent about Welch's pasteurized grape juice?

Number 16. Why is the Bible completely silent about having a water tank up front in the church?

Number 17. Why is the Bible completely silent about Wednesday night prayer meetings?

Number 18. Why is the Bible completely silent about The Living Oracles?
Larry

United States

#15 Sep 6, 2013
Number 19. Why is the bible silent about taking a shit

Number 20. Why is the bible silent about your masterbation aDICKtion

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#16 Sep 6, 2013
Number 21. Why do these CofC sola scriptura types jump up and down and throw tantrums about one word or one verse yet when it comes the the very words of Jesus Christ they deny he meant exactly what he said, call it just a symbol and use Welchs pasteurized grape juice on top of that?
Mike Peterson

Jackson, MS

#17 Sep 6, 2013
Larry wrote:
Number 19. Why is the bible silent about taking a shit
Number 20. Why is the bible silent about your masterbation aDICKtion
It is always confusing to me why somebody like you even care what Christians believe.

Do you have meetings to discuss Atheism Apologetics. Do your converts give their testimony?

Were you sexually abused by a COC pastor?
Anonymous Proxy

Manassas, VA

#18 Sep 6, 2013
Mike Peterson wrote:
<quoted text>
Were you sexually abused by a COC pastor?
You are constantly asking others that question as you asked me. Do you think other churches are like the Catholics? No, they aren't. The only indiction he may be Catholic is his vile language, but those still in the world exhibit those characteristics as well as the Catholics do. When the majority of your clergy is homosexual then expect the scandals your church has. Even potty mouth Mark admits his homosexuality in the thread about homosexuals. Mark may be a Catholic priest for all I know.
Mike Peterson

Jackson, MS

#19 Sep 7, 2013
Anonymous Proxy wrote:
<quoted text>You are constantly asking others that question as you asked me. Do you think other churches are like the Catholics? No, they aren't. The only indiction he may be Catholic is his vile language, but those still in the world exhibit those characteristics as well as the Catholics do. When the majority of your clergy is homosexual then expect the scandals your church has. Even potty mouth Mark admits his homosexuality in the thread about homosexuals. Mark may be a Catholic priest for all I know.
I think Larry is an atheist who for some reason is fixated on the COC or the Church of God or the Church of God in Christ or whatever it is.

That who I was responding to.

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#20 Sep 7, 2013
Mike Peterson wrote:
<quoted text>
I think Larry is an atheist who for some reason is fixated on the COC or the Church of God or the Church of God in Christ or whatever it is.
That who I was responding to.
You are correct. Larry appears on local television in Martinsville VA along with COfC preacher Johnny Robertson. I believe this station is also available on the internet.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 11
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Bassett Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Is baptism essential to salvation (Nov '10) 1 hr Mike_Peterson 270
The Origin of the Roman Catholic Church 1 hr Dave P 166
Why do we go to church? 9 hr Barnsweb 14
Jesus' words only teaching, HRM (Sep '13) Mon Bobby 67
Catholics (Feb '14) Sun Bobby 869
Signing off ... for now Aug 26 Barnsweb 512
Where did the CoC cowards go? Aug 23 Jimmy Crack Corn 2
•••
•••

Bassett Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Bassett People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Bassett News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Bassett
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••