mkmyers45: Shut it please..if you've got hate for RC's take it elsewhere

truthislight:

the letter the apostles wrote went to churches that were form by the apostles especially apostle paul.

This leters address the needs of those christians and they kept them as God's word.

THis christians were told to copy the letters and sent to the next congregation in the other cities so that they can learn from those writhing.

This letters were written to congregations and not to a central body but to different congregations and this congregations had this letters from the time of the apostles in the first century (1CE)
and they had it/kept them till the fourth century (4CE) that the catholics claim to canonise the bible.

Did the catholics withthrew all the letters that the congregations had from the apostle from the 1CE up to the 3rdCE befor the canonization took place and subsequently sent it back to them?

It is obvious That they are lying as it is clearly known that they simply put a stamp on what was already in existent to make themself relevant and politicise things.

They have nothing closely resembling the claim of providing the bible that we have today.

truthislight:

the letter the apostles wrote went to churches that were form by the apostles especially apostle paul.

This leters address the needs of those christians and they kept them as God's word.

THis christians were told to copy the letters and sent to the next congregation in the other cities so that they can learn from those writhing.

This letters were written to congregations and not to a central body but to different congregations and this congregations had this letters from the time of the apostles in the first century (1CE)
and they had it/kept them till the fourth century (4CE) that the catholics claim to canonise the bible.

Did the catholics withthrew all the letters that the congregations had from the apostle from the 1CE up to the 3rdCE befor the canonization took place and subsequently sent it back to them?

It is obvious That they are lying as it is clearly known that they simply put a stamp on what was already in existent to make themself relevant and politicise things.

They have nothing closely resembling the claim of providing the bible that we have today.

mkmyers45: Which research? Did you get into the vatican archives? Who gave the first cannonized scripture? How did you pre-date it? Are you a member of the Church Council that did oversee translation and cannoning?

[/quote]Besides, there is a difference between who compiled the bible and who wrote or inspired scripture, it I
s plain throughout scripture that God can actually use his enemies to achieve his purposes[quote]

mkmyers45: Hahahahaha You make me laugh...then where did you get the original scrolls that you compared and translated? What research are you talking about then? How did you indeed come about your research?

chukwudi44:

If I tell you that you know nothing about xtian history you will say I am insulting you.

Prior to the fourth century CE there was no established canon.a
All sort of writings were flying about all purported to have been wrtten by the apostles.they were about 18 gospels in existence including gospel of thomas,gospel of mary,gospel of mary e.t.c

Rich4god: The Holy Eucharist is the center of our worship... The more the anti-catholic thread, the more i see the truth in the catholic church.

chukwudi44:

If I tell you that you know nothing about xtian history you will say I am insulting you.

Prior to the fourth century CE there was no established canon.a
All sort of writings were flying about all purported to have been wrtten by the apostles.they were about 18 gospels in existence including gospel of thomas,gospel of mary,gospel of mary e.t.c

It was the Rcc that decided the books that finally went into the bible

Rich4god: The Holy Eucharist is the center of our worship... The more the anti-catholic thread, the more i see the truth in the catholic church.

Rich4god: The Holy Eucharist is the center of our worship... The more the anti-catholic thread, the more i see the truth in the catholic church.

frosbel:

The church is the one universal church of GOD , invisible with it's Christ as the head.

Your church my friend is a counterfeit of the real thing. Everything it stands for is contrary to Christ.

frosbel:

ah okay the Holy Eucharist is the centre of your worship not Christ

Rich4god:
SMH... I thought you said you are a former catholic. How come you dont know what i mean.

truthislight:

is this how to disprove what i have stated?

That the bible is God's word and not the RCC?

What is the hate here?

truthislight:

Now, if those questions are directed at you how will you answer them?

Now i know the knowledge you have been feeding from that nourished you this much.

mkmyers45: What is your argument?

frosbel:

Okay you know what , show me your sources and I will show you mine.

mkmyers45: where are your manners? i asked first..

frosbel:

And you believe that the bread you eat turns into Christ's body right ? or that the wine turns into this blood ? SMH

frosbel:

Oh you did , and where exactly ?

Rich4god:
Words of our Lord >>> Matt 26:26-28. Words of the Apostle >>> 1 Corinthians 11:23-30.

Did the Roman Catholic church give us our Bible?
Roman Catholics often say that it was their church that gave us the Bible. They sometimes claim this when defending their "Sacred Tradition" so that they might support extra-biblical teachings such as purgatory, penance, indulgences, and Mary worship. They often say the only way the Christian church knew what books are to be included in the Canon of Scripture was because it was revealed by word-of-mouth in the early church; that is, by the tradition of the Catholic Church.

Unfortunately, this argument implies that tradition is superior to Scripture. Of course, we are not saying that the Roman Catholic church teaches that tradition is above Scripture. But when Sacred Tradition is claimed to be the thing by which Scripture is given, then tradition is inadvertently the thing that gives blessing and approval to the Bible. Heb. 7:7 says, "But without any dispute the lesser is blessed by the greater." The unfortunate psychological effect of saying that Roman Catholic tradition is what gave us the Bible, is that it elevates their tradition to a level far greater than what is permitted in Scripture. In fact, it is contradicted by scripture:

"Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that in us you might learn not to exceed what is written, in order that no one of you might become arrogant in behalf of one against the other," (1 Cor. 4:6).
The Bible tells us to obey the Word of God, to not go beyond the written Word, so that we might not make mistakes in what is true. Unfortunately, the problem with an elevated status of Roman Catholic church tradition is that it results in various justifications of it's non-biblical teachings such as prayer to Mary, purgatory, indulgences, penance, works of righteousness, etc. Because it has deviated from trusting God's Word alone, it has ventured into unscriptural areas. Nevertheless, did the Roman Catholic Church give us the Bible? No, it did not.

First of all, the Roman Catholic Church was not really in effect as an organization in the first couple hundred years of the Christian Church. The Christian church was under persecution and official church gatherings were risky business in the Roman Empire. Catholicism as an organization with a central figure located in Rome did not occur for quite some time, in spite of its claim they can trace the papacy back to Peter.

Second, the Christian Church recognized what was Scripture. It did not establish it. This is a very important point. The Christian Church recognizes what God has inspired and pronounces that recognition. In other words, it discovers what is already authentic. Jesus said "my sheep hear my voice and they follow me..." (John 10:27). The church hears the voice of Christ; that is, it recognizes what is inspired and it follows the word. It does not add to it as the Roman Catholic Church has done. Therefore, it is not following the voice of Christ.

Third, the Roman Catholic Church did not give us the Old Testament which is the Scripture to which Christ and the apostles appealed. If the Roman Catholic Church wants to state that it gave us the Bible, how can they claim to have given us the Old Testament which is part of the Bible? It didn't, so it cannot make that claim. The fact is that the followers of God, the true followers of God, recognize what is and is not inspired. The Jews knew what was inspired of God and they recognized what God had inspired. That is what those who are of God do.

Fourth, when the apostles wrote the New Testament documents they were inspired by the power of the Holy Spirit. There wasn't any real issue of whether or not they were authentic. Their writings did not need to be deemed worthy of inclusion in the Canon of Scripture by a later group of men in the so-called Roman Catholic Church. To make such a claim is, in effect, to usurp the natural power and authority of God himself.

Fifth, the Scripture says, "But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God," (2 Pet. 1:20-21). The Bible tells us that the Scriptures are inspired by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the very nature of the inspired documents is that they carry power and authenticity in themselves. They are not given the power or the authenticity of ecclesiastical declaration.

Conclusion

The Christian church merely recognizes the Word of God (John 10:27). The authenticity of the New Testament documents rests in the inspiration of God through the apostles. It does not rest in the declaration of the Catholic Church. This is very important. The Christian Church recognizes what God has ordained through his sovereign inspiration to be the word of God. When the Catholic Church claims that it is the source of the sacred Scriptures, it is, in effect, placing itself above the word of God. It needs to repent.

frosbel:


Dear Sir, this is symbolic not literal.

The wine does not turn to blood and neither does the bread turn into a real body.

"and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." - 1 Corinthians 11:24

Rich4god:
Read 1 Corinthians 11:27 and tell me whats symbolic about it.

[/quote]41. truthislight: Quote Post

chukwudi44:
However, the early churches knew what they had to be genuine and they held on/pass it along.[quote]

frosbel:

"Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord." - 1 Corinthians 11:27

and where does it say here that the bread turns to flesh and the wine to blood ?

frosbel:

"Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord." - 1 Corinthians 11:27

and where does it say here that the bread turns to flesh and the wine to blood ?