What Divides Catholics and Protestants?

[Oxbow]

636 646

Nettiebelle wrote:

<quoted text>The Bible did not come complete with an index, telling us which books, and how many, are inspired writings and canonical or not. It was the bishops of the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit that sorted out and decided the canon of Sacred Scripture. The bishops were preserved from falling into error, as our Lord promised, on this important matter concerning the Holy Catholic Church.(Matt. 16:18; 28:18-20)(John 14,15, and 16)(1 Tim. 3:14-15)(Acts 15:28) They included Tobit, Baruch, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), 1 Maccabees, and 2 Maccabees. Roman Catholics call these books deuterocanonical. Protestants call them Apocrypha. There are some additional passages in Daniel and Esther not found in Protestant Bibles.
The Bible came out of the Catholic Church around the end of the 4th century.( No small feat!) The Synods of Hippo, 393 A.D., and Carthage, 397 A.D.,and later, Carthage 419 A.D.,( along with the Traditional Bible or Latin Vulgate ( LV ), 406 A.D., by Saint Jerome ),gave us the canon of Sacred Scripture as Catholics know it today. Relatively recent archeological findings and analysis of the Dead Sea scrolls (Qumran) of 1947 revealed that several deuterocanonical books were originally composed in Hebrew or Aramaic. This is very relevant and significant because earlier Protestant reformers of the 16th century, were very suspicious of, and rejected books, only available to them in the Greek Language. In part therefore, the Protestant canon of 66 books of Sacred Scripture is deficient - short seven (7) books.
The regional or local Catholic Church Councils of Hippo, 393 A.D., and Carthage, 397 A.D., and later, Carthage 419 A.D. gave us the canon of Sacred Scripture as we know it today.
http://www.catholicevangelism.org/h-canon1.sh...

More garbage....and it does not change the truth per the Sacred Infallible Word of God:

Mt 3:6 And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.
Mr 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
Ac 18:8 And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized.
Infants cannot:
A.Confess their sins.
B.Cannot believe.
C.Cannot believe on the Lord.

[Oxbow]

650

Nettiebelle wrote:

<quoted text>The Necessity of Baptism:
Christ Himself ordered His disciples to preach the Gospel to all nations and to baptize those who accept the message of the Gospel. In His encounter with Nicodemus (John 3:1-21), Christ made it clear that baptism was necessary for salvation: "Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." For Catholics, the sacrament is not a mere formality; it is the very mark of a Christian, because it brings us into new life in Christ.
Baptism of Desire:
That doesn't mean that only those who have been formally baptized can be saved. From very early on, the Church recognized that there are two other types of baptism besides the baptism of water.
The baptism of desire applies both to those who, while wishing to be baptized, die before receiving the sacrament and "Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do His will as they know it through the dictates of conscience" (Constitution on the Church, Second Vatican Council).
Baptism of Blood:
The baptism of blood is similar to the baptism of desire. It refers to the martyrdom of those believers who were killed for the faith before they had a chance to be baptized. This was a common occurrence in the early centuries of the Church, but also in later times in missionary lands. The baptism of blood has the same effects as the baptism of water.
http://catholicism.about.com/od/beliefsteachi...
John The Baptist was not baptized as a Christian; if fact, he was not a Christian, yet he died for the faith, she he was canonized and is now a Saint of the Catholic Church.

You spoke the truth!!!! Quote:Christ Himself ordered His disciples to preach the Gospel to all nations and to baptize those who accept the message of the Gospel.

Infants cannot grasp the Gospel...much less accept the message!!! To baptize an infant is a waste of time and water.....

[Amish]

tickedoffchic wrote:

where do you think they came from? LOL!!!

Catholics? They were the ROMANS until Constantine. Then the religion was mish-mashed. It wasnt the true Christianity of the Nazarenes - the first Christians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazarene_%28sect...

[Amish]

Nettiebelle wrote:
The Bible did not come complete with an index, telling us which books, and how many, are inspired writings and canonical or not. It was the bishops of the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit that sorted out and decided the canon of Sacred Scripture."

-

It is good you see the importance of the Bible but the RC did not decide the books to be used. They only decided what books they would use. They accepted the same books already in use by the Nazarene Christians. There were many other books correctly rejected.

There are documents and records predating the Council of Nicea that record what books were in use. One is the Muratorian fragment, 170 AD.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muratorian_fragm...

We dont get the canon from RC priests rather 1st & 2nd century witnesses who were there and knew what was considered inspired, same as witnessed the virgin birth and other miracles, and knew Paul was also inspired. Besides their witness we can confirm the books are all in harmony, unlike the apocryphal books later added by Rome, correctly removed by Protestant Bibles.

• Who wrote the NT books and when?

http://carm.org/wasnt-new-testament-written-h...

http://www.datingthenewtestament.com/Fathers....

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

[Nettiebelle]

Amish wrote:

Nettiebelle wrote:
The Bible did not come complete with an index, telling us which books, and how many, are inspired writings and canonical or not. It was the bishops of the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit that sorted out and decided the canon of Sacred Scripture."
-
It is good you see the importance of the Bible but the RC did not decide the books to be used. They only decided what books they would use. They accepted the same books already in use by the Nazarene Christians. There were many other books correctly rejected.
There are documents and records predating the Council of Nicea that record what books were in use. One is the Muratorian fragment, 170 AD.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muratorian_fragm...
We dont get the canon from RC priests rather 1st & 2nd century witnesses who were there and knew what was considered inspired, same as witnessed the virgin birth and other miracles, and knew Paul was also inspired. Besides their witness we can confirm the books are all in harmony, unlike the apocryphal books later added by Rome, correctly removed by Protestant Bibles.
• Who wrote the NT books and when?
http://carm.org/wasnt-new-testament-written-h...
http://www.datingthenewtestament.com/Fathers....
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

The Bible came out of the Catholic Church around the end of the 4th century.( No small feat!) The Synods of Hippo, 393 A.D., and Carthage, 397 A.D.,and later, Carthage 419 A.D.,( along with the Traditional Bible or Latin Vulgate ( LV ), 406 A.D., by Saint Jerome ),gave us the canon of Sacred Scripture as Catholics know it today. Relatively recent archeological findings and analysis of the Dead Sea scrolls (Qumran) of 1947 revealed that several deuterocanonical books were originally composed in Hebrew or Aramaic. This is very relevant and significant because earlier Protestant reformers of the 16th century, were very suspicious of, and rejected books, only available to them in the Greek Language. In part therefore, the Protestant canon of 66 books of Sacred Scripture is deficient - short seven (7) books.

The regional or local Catholic Church Councils of Hippo, 393 A.D., and Carthage, 397 A.D., and later, Carthage 419 A.D. gave us the canon of Sacred Scripture as we know it today. Although these were just local councils, Saint Augustine did insist that the list given by these councils be sent to Rome for approval. Pope Saint Siricius (384-399 A.D.) approved the canon just as his papal predecessor Pope Damasus I had done in a Synod in 382 A.D. with a formal writing "Decretal of Gelasius", de recipiendis et non recipiendis libris.(The archeological findings and analysis pertaining to the Council of Rome 382 A.D. and some of the Popes may not be a settled fact.)

A friend of Saint Jerome, Saint Exuperius of Toulouse, a Gallican bishop, wrote to Pope Innocent I in a formal letter requesting the list of canonical books. The Pope replied - honoring Saint Exuperius - with a letter listing the canonical books:

Consulenti Tibi Dated February 405 A.D.
. This list is the same as the canonical list that Catholics have today. This includes the Protestant apocrypha or Catholic deuterocanonical books of the Holy Bible.
http://www.catholicevangelism.org/h-canon1.sh...

[Ashelah]

Think what divides us are the statues, confession, praying to Mary, having direct access to God and not, sacraments and the 7 deadly sins, I'm sure there's a few others too. Maybe we should focus on the things we have in common? Just a thought.
Peace and love and heaven above <3

[Cookie_Parker]

Amish wrote:

Nettiebelle wrote:
The Bible did not come complete with an index, telling us which books, and how many, are inspired writings and canonical or not. It was the bishops of the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit that sorted out and decided the canon of Sacred Scripture."
-
It is good you see the importance of the Bible but the RC did not decide the books to be used. They only decided what books they would use. They accepted the same books already in use by the Nazarene Christians. There were many other books correctly rejected.
There are documents and records predating the Council of Nicea that record what books were in use. One is the Muratorian fragment, 170 AD.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muratorian_fragm...
We dont get the canon from RC priests rather 1st & 2nd century witnesses who were there and knew what was considered inspired, same as witnessed the virgin birth and other miracles, and knew Paul was also inspired. Besides their witness we can confirm the books are all in harmony, unlike the apocryphal books later added by Rome, correctly removed by Protestant Bibles.
• Who wrote the NT books and when?
http://carm.org/wasnt-new-testament-written-h...
http://www.datingthenewtestament.com/Fathers....
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Nazarene Christians?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_Na...

The Church of the Nazarene is an evangelical Christian denomination that emerged from the 19th-century Holiness movement in North America. With its members colloquially referred to as Nazarenes, it is the largest Wesleyan-holiness denomination in the world.[1][2] At the end of September 2011, the Church of the Nazarene had 2,136,122 members in 27,524 churches in 157 different "world areas".[3][4][5] Most members of the Church of the Nazarene are found in the United States and Canada (663,901),[3] Haiti (116,000),[6] Bangladesh (65,000),[7] and India (59,039).[8] The denomination has the highest per capita population in the nations of Cape Verde, Samoa, Barbados, Haiti and Swaziland.[9]

Seems to have been developed a bit later than your comments.

Let me try to find it again.

This article is about the 4th Century Jewish Christian group contemporary with the Ebionites. For alternative etymologies for Nazarene and comparable terms in Hebrew, see Nazarene (title).
For other uses, see Nazarene (disambiguation).

The Nazarene sect (&#7969; &#964;&#8182;&#957 ; &#925;&#945;&#950; &#969;&#961;&#945; &#943;&#969;&#957; &#945;&#7989;&#961 ;&#949;&#963;&#953 ;&#962;) is used in two contexts:

Firstly of the New Testament Church where in Acts 24:5 Paul the Apostle is accused before Felix at Caesarea (the capital of Roman Judaea) by Tertullus of being "a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes."[1]

Secondly of a 4th Century Jewish-Christian sect located in Transjordan called the Nazarenes by Epiphanius,[2] Jerome and Augustine of Hippo.[3][4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazarene_%28sect...

Nope...they came 400 years after Christ.

Where's your link?

[Disciple of Jesus]

Catholicism is SATANIC. Their rituals are SATANIC. The Eucharist is SATANIC.

The Catholic Babylonian religion was birthed in the fourth century and they have been killing Christians ever since.

[Anonymous]

Repent & Believe The Gospel
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

[Patriot]

Earth in crisis: Is the planet on the verge of a ‘meltdown’?

http://theextinctionprotocol.wordpress.com/20...

http://bible.cc/matthew/24-12.htm

[Patriot]

The End of Babylon, a.k.a., the NWO

http://niv.scripturetext.com/revelation/18.ht...

GOD'S instruction to ALL who will listen:

http://niv.scripturetext.com/revelation/14-6....

The future of ALL who choose not obey His Command to "Come Out of her":

"...The lake of fire is the Second Death. If anyone’s name was not found written in the Book of Life, he was thrown into the lake of fire." vs 14-15
http://niv.scripturetext.com/revelation/20.ht...

http://bible.cc/luke/12-5.htm

Comfort for GOD'S people http://bible.cc/galatians/3-7.htm --

http://niv.scripturetext.com/isaiah/40.htm

http://bible.cc/revelation/21-4.htm

Home at last :

http://niv.scripturetext.com/revelation/22.ht...

http://bible.cc/psalms/27-14.htm

[frank]

Cookie_Parker wrote:

<quoted text>
Nazarene Christians?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_Na...
The Church of the Nazarene is an evangelical Christian denomination that emerged from the 19th-century Holiness movement in North America. With its members colloquially referred to as Nazarenes, it is the largest Wesleyan-holiness denomination in the world?

The first "Christians" were called Nazarenes and Galilaeans, that group which you mentioned is a knock-off----more edomite mis-information.

[frank]

P.S

And then the Edomites hi-jacked the religion, combined it with paganism and created easter and Christmas, and the rest is history( Idolatry, total abandonment of the law, etc., etc.)

Shalom

[Cookie_Parker]

Oxbow wrote:

636 646
<quoted text>
More garbage....and it does not change the truth per the Sacred Infallible Word of God:
Mt 3:6 And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.
Mr 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
Ac 18:8 And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized.
Infants cannot:
A.Confess their sins.
B.Cannot believe.
C.Cannot believe on the Lord.

Sorry, but the NIV is NOT the infallible word of God. It's a recreation of a religious text to satisfy a political agenda.

[Cookie_Parker]

Disciple of Jesus wrote:

The Catholics were created in the fourth century under a Hexagram religion. Look at the Catholics, robes, books, building, stained-glass windows the Hexagram is everywhere.
Don't let their words fool you like the Mormons redefining words to deceive.
The key to Catholics is the Inquisition: murder and more murder. The Eucharist is purely Satanic.
The circumcision of the heart and baptism by fire is when and where one becomes saved. The follow-up by an act of obedience to Jesus ordinance is Baptism by full immersion.
Baptism represent: buried with Jesus and arise back in a new life to walk with Him. Baptism is representative of the grave; pouring and/or sprinkling is not the meaning or the practice. Baptist are 300 yrs older than the organization of CAtholic.
They are Antichrist; which can be proven easily. In the NT the Apostle John (1JN 2:18) spoke of them and you can trace them to Egypt and then on to Rome. Look at the Nicoliatans: the Opus Dei are the same bunch - Jesus said, "But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.
Rev 2:6 (KJV)" So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate.
Rev 2:15 (KJV) Don't be deceived by words of the Catholics; their Hexagram and the words of STUR are their indicators to let you know who they are in reality. The number value of both STUR and the Hexagram is 666. They have admitted to killing tens of millions of Baptist.

Do you draw your "knowledge" from this blogger?

http://ministerofblog.blogspot.com/p/do-you-b...

[Cookie_Parker]

frank wrote:

<quoted text>
The first "Christians" were called Nazarenes and Galilaeans, that group which you mentioned is a knock-off----more edomite mis-information.

I don't think so. The Nazarenes and Galilaeans were people from the cities of Nazarene and Galilea.

[barry]

Cookie_Parker wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't think so. The Nazarenes and Galilaeans were people from the cities of Nazarene and Galilea.

if paul was a "ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes" [Acts 24:5] and Paul was not from nazareth or nazarene as you put it then perhaps you are incorrect about your assumption.
the "sect of the nazarenes" had nothing to do with being from nazareth but rather everything with being a follower of Christ who being from nazareth and therefore he was called a "nazarene". that was different from the "sect of the nazarenes" as made evident by paul being accused of being the leader.

[Black Hebrew]

Cookie_Parker wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't think so. The Nazarenes and Galilaeans were people from the cities of Nazarene and Galilea.

Here's a short article explaining the term "nazarene". It's written by "A skeptic's guide to Christianity"--not the greatest source--but gives a good, brief explanation none-the-less,

Shalom

[Black Hebrew]

By the way, here's an interesting paragraph from the article:
"
Initially, the Nazarenes were never considered heretical by the Pharisees. In fact they were so zealous for the law of Moses that the Nazarenes (or Jerusalem "Christians") were considered an ultra-pious group of Jews.[12] As the early Church Father, Hegesippus, relates, James was famous for his strict observance of the Jewish law and for undertaking vows which are normally taken only by the most devout Pharisee.[13] As James, Peter and, presumably, many of their followers knew the earthly Jesus, it is hard to imagine that these actions would be contrary to Jesus' teachings. It was more likely that they were doing what Jesus, when he was alive, commanded them to do. In fact these original apostles of Jesus, headed by James and Peter, never accepted Paul as a true apostle. The uneasy relationship forged after the Jerusalem council was broken off at Antioch and was never mended. Despite Paul's attempts to bribe his way back with an offering of cash collection from his Gentile congregations, James and his church never accepted Paul back into the fold."

[Oxbow]

675

Cookie_Parker wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry, but the NIV is NOT the infallible word of God. It's a recreation of a religious text to satisfy a political agenda.

Seest thou a man wise in his own conceit? there is more hope of a fool than of him.