Fourthly, 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.

italo. craziebone. vest. btok

Secondly, God did not give councils the
authority to select His sacred books, nor
does He expect men to receive His sacred
books only because of councils or on the
basis of councils. It takes no vote or
sanction of a council to make the books
of the Bible authoritative. Men were able
to rightly discern which books were
inspired before the existence of
ecclesiastical councils and men can do so
today. A council of men in 390 with no
divine authority whatever, supposedly
took upon itself the right to state which
books were inspired, and Catholics
argue, "We can accept the Bible only on
the authority of the Catholic Church."
Can we follow such reasoning?

Thirdly, 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).

Please notice further quotes
from Catholic sources:


"During those early times parts of the
Bible were scattered among the various
churches, no one of which had the
complete Bible as we have it now. Then
in A.D. 390, at the Council of Hippo, the
Catholic Church gathered together the
various books which claimed to be
scripture, passed on the merits and
claims of each and this council decided
which were inspired and which were
not. The Catholic Church put all the
inspired books and epistles together in
one volume and THAT is the Bible as we
have it today. The Catholic Church
therefore gave to the people and the
World, the Bible as we have it
today." (From a magazine advertisement
published by the Knights of Columbus
bearing the title, "Who Gave the Bible to
the People?"

"It was not until the Council of Hippo in
390 that the Church gathered these
gospels and epistles, scattered about in
different churches, and placed them
within the covers of a single book, giving
the Bible to the world." (The Faith of
Millions , p. 152).

"Indeed, when you accept the Bible as
the Word of God, you are obliged to
receive it on the authority of the Catholic
Church, who was the sole Guardian of
the Scriptures for fifteen hundred
years." (The Faith of Our Fathers, p. 68).

"When were all these writings put
together? The Catholic Church put all of
them in one book between the years 350
and 405." (A Catechism for Adults , p. 10).

Thus, 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.



[quote=#000099]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).[\quote]

take note of the colored italo, vest, craziebone

If the Bible is a Catholic book, how can
Catholics account for the passage, "A
bishop then, must be blameless, married
but once, reserved, prudent, of good
conduct, hospitable, a teacher...He
should rule well his own household,
keeping his children under control and
perfectly respectful. For if a man cannot
rule his own household, how is he to take
care of the church of God?" (1 Tim. 3:2,
4-5). The Catholic Church does not allow
a bishop to marry, while the Bible says
"he must be married." Furthermore, if
the Bible is a Catholic book, why did they
write the Bible as it is, and feel the
necessity of putting footnotes at the
bottom of the page in effort to keep their
subject from believing what is in the
text?


The following list give a summation of
what we have been trying to emphasize.
If the Bible is a Catholic book,

1. Why does it condemn clerical dress?
(Matt. 23:5-6).

2. Why does it teach against the
adoration of Mary? (Luke 11:27-28).

3. Why does it show that all Christians
are priests? (1 Pet. 2:5,9).

4. Why does it condemn the observance
of special days? (Gal. 4:9-11).

5. Why does it teach that all Christians
are saints? (1 Cor. 1:2).

6. Why does it condemn the making and
adoration of images? (Ex. 20:4-5).

7. Why does it teach that baptism is
immersion instead of pouring? (Col.
2:12).

8. Why does it forbid us to address
religious leaders as "father"? (Matt.
23:9).

9. Why does it teach that Christ is the
only foundation and not the apostle
Peter? (1 Cor. 3:11).

10. Why does it teach that there is one
mediator instead of many? (1 Tim. 2:5).

11. Why does it teach that a bishop must
be a married man? (1 Tim. 3:2, 4-5).

12. Why is it opposed to the primacy of
Peter? (Luke 22:24-27).

13. Why does it oppose the idea of
purgatory? (Luke 16:26).

14. Why is it completely silent about
infant baptism, indulgences, confession to
priests, the rosary, the mass, and many
other things in the Catholic Church?


italo. vest. craziebone

In addition to the above, Catholics often
boast that the Bible was written by
Catholics, e.g., "All the books of the New
Testament were written by
Catholics." (The Bible is a Catholic Book , p.
14). When we consider the word
"catholic" as meaning "universal," we
readily admit that the writers were
"catholic" in that sense; they were
members of the church universal--the
church of Christ which is described in
the New Testament Scriptures (Col. 1:18;
Rom. 16:16). However, we firmly deny
that the writers of the New Testament
were members of the Roman Catholic
Church as we know it today. The Roman
Catholic Church was not fully developed
until several hundred years after the
New Testament was written. It is not the
same institution as disclosed in the New
Testament. The New Testament books
were written by members of the Lord's
church, but they are not its author. God
Himself is the author of the New
Testament.

The Catholic officials above claim that
without the Catholic Church there would
be no Bible; they argue that mankind can
accept the Scriptures only on the basis of
the Catholic Church which gathered the
books and determined which were
inspired. Surely the Catholic Church
cannot claim that it gave us the Old
Testament Scriptures. The Old Testament
came through the Jews (God's chosen
people of old) who had the holy oracles
entrusted to them. Paul said, "What
advantage then remains to the Jew, or
what is the use of circumcision? Much in
every respect. First, indeed, because the
oracles of God were entrusted to
them." (Rom. 3:1-2; see also Rom. 9:4-5;
Acts 7:38).

The Old Testament books were gathered
into one volume and were translated
from Hebrew into Greek long before
Christ came to earth. The Septuagint
Version was translated by seventy
scholars at Alexandria, Egypt around the
year 227 B.C., and this was the version
Christ and His apostles used. Christ did
not tell the people, as Catholics do today,
that they could accept the Scriptures only
on the basis of the authority of those
who gathered them and declared them to
be inspired. He urged the people of His
day to follow the Old Testament
Scriptures as the infallible guide, not
because man or any group of men has
sanctioned them as such, but because
they came from God. Furthermore, He
understood that God-fearing men and
women would be able to discern by
evidence (external and internal) which
books were of God and which were not;
thus, He never raised questions and
doubts concerning the gathering of the
inspired books.


If the Bible is a Catholic book, why does
it nowhere mention the Catholic Church?
Why is there no mention of a pope, a
cardinal, an archbishop, a parish priest,
a nun, or a member of any other
Catholic order? If the Bible is a Catholic
book, why is auricular confession,
indulgences, prayers to the saints,
adoration of Mary, veneration of relics
and images, and many other rites and
ceremonies of the Catholic Church, left
out of it?


Nora, vest and italo

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.

Notice, again, the following
from Catholic sources:

"Because it never was a Bible, till the
infallible Church pronounced it to be so.
The separate treatises, each of them
inspired, were lying, as it were
dispersedly; easy to confound with
others, that were uninspired. The Church
gathered them up, selected them,
pronounced judgment on them; rejecting
some, which she defined and declared
not to be canonical, because not
inspired; adopting others as being
inspired, and therefore
canonical." (What Is the Bible? p. 6).

"And since the books of the Bible
constituting both the Old and the New
Testament were determined solely by the
authority of the Catholic Church, without
the Church there would have been no
Bible, and hence no Protestantism." (The
Faith of Millions , p. 10).

Did The Catholic
Church Give Us The
Bible?


Catholics contend that the whole world is
indebted to the Roman Catholic church
for the existence of the Bible. This is
another of their attempts to exalt the
church as an authority in addition to the
Bible.


Please notice the following
from Catholic sources:

"If she had not scrutinized carefully the
writings of her children, rejecting some
and approving others as worthy of
inclusion in the canon of the New
Testament, there would be no New
Testament today.

"If she had not declared the books
composing the New Testament to be
inspired word of God, we would not know
it.

"The only authority which non-Catholics
have for the inspiration of the Scriptures
is the authority of the Catholic

Church." (The Faith of Millions , p. 145)
"It is only by the divine authority of the
Catholic Church that Christians know
that the scripture is the word of God, and
what books certainly belong to the
Bible." (The Question Box , p. 46)

"It was the Catholic Church and no other
which selected and listed the inspired
books of both the Old Testament and the
New Testament...If you can accept the
Bible or any part of it as inspired Word
of God, you can do so only because the
Catholic Church says it is." (The Bible is a
Catholic Book , p. 4).


The Catholic writers quoted above state
that one can accept the Bible as being
inspired and as having authority only on
the basis of the Catholic Church. In
reality, the Bible is inspired and has
authority, not because a church declared
it so, but because God made it so. God
delivered it by the inspiration of the
Holy Spirit and declared that it would
abide forever. "All scripture is inspired
of God..." (2 Tim. 3:16). "...Holy men of
God spoke as they were moved by the
Holy Spirit." (2 Pet. 1:21). "Heaven and
earth will pass away, but my words will
not pass away." (Matt. 24:35). "The grass
withered, and the flower has fallen--but
the word of the Lord endures
forever." (1 Pet. 1:24-25). The Catholics
are wrong, therefore, in their
assumption that the Bible is authoritative
only because of the Catholic Church. The
Bible does not owe its existence to the
Catholic Church, but to the authority,
power and providence of God.


this is to italo, vest and craziebone

craziebone:


i really want to know how their going against the bible prove that they are not the ones who compiled it? If they are not the ones who compiled it, who then did? How did it come about in the present for that it is with 27 books in new testament. Since the bible did not mention the books that are suppose to be in it, how did you know that the books in it are suppose to be there and not some other books?

u people are the one claiming that you compiled it. Why dnt u now tell me when u people compiled it or shut up.

vest:
the worst part b say u dnt even knw the meaning of a cult

i should be telling u that. there is no much difference between the roman catholic and some kind of cult group.

Worshipping the queen of heaven. A pagan deity.

Praying to the dead which i can say similar to consulting the dead.

Bowing to graven images.

Burning of incense.

Exhuming dead and rotten corpse.

Worshipping the pope and licking his foot.

Burning black, red, white candles.

Following pagan traditions.



They are too many to count.

Is this the church of christ?

First thing first. Tithe is not for christian. Many people who are paying tithe dnt know what they are doing. They just do it because their pastor say so.

is Jesus seeing me as a robber?

JuicyGee:

yes it is 2day.

to u alone sha.

why cant u people leave seun alone and face the topic at hand?

JuicyGee:

nairaland is boringgg

is not boring.

God hate all sins equally. all sins are sin. as long as it is a sin, God hate it.

the bible is abundantly clear of what baptism is, who it is for,
and what it accomplishes. In the Bible, only
believers who had placed their faith in Christ were
baptized - as a public testimony of their faith and
identification with Him ( Acts 2:38 ; Romans
6:3-4 ). Water baptism by immersion is a step of
obedience after faith in Christ. It is a
proclamation of faith in Christ, a statement of
submission to Him, and an identification with His
death, burial, and resurrection.


With this in view, infant baptism is not a Biblical
practice. An infant cannot place his or her faith in
Christ. An infant cannot make a conscious
decision to obey Christ. An infant cannot
understand what water baptism symbolizes. The
Bible does not record any infants being baptized.
Infant baptism is the origin of the sprinkling and
pouring methods of baptism - as it is unwise and
unsafe to immerse an infant under water. Even
the method of infant baptism fails to agree with
the Bible. How does pouring or sprinkling
illustrate the death, burial, and resurrection of
Jesus Christ?



Many Christians who practice infant baptism do
so because they understand infant baptism as the
new covenant equivalent of circumcision. In this
view, just as circumcision joined a Hebrew to the
Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants, so baptism
joined a person to the New Covenant of salvation
through Jesus Christ. This view is unbiblical. The
New Testament nowhere describes baptism as
the New Covenant replacement for Old Covenant
circumcision. The New Testament nowhere
describes baptism as a sign of the New
Covenant. It is faith in Jesus Christ that enables
a person to enjoy the blessings of the New
Covenant ( 1 Corinthians 11:25 ; 2 Corinthians 3:6 ;
Hebrews 9:15 ).



Baptism does not save a person. It does not
matter if you were baptized by immersion,
pouring, or sprinkling - if you have not first
trusted in Christ for salvation, baptism (no matter
the method) is meaningless and useless. Water
baptism by immersion is a step of obedience to
be done after salvation as a public profession of
faith in Christ and identification with Him. Infant
baptism does not fit the Biblical definition of
baptism or the Biblical method of baptism. If
Christian parents wish to dedicate their child to
Christ, then a baby dedication service is entirely
appropriate. However, even if infants are
dedicated to the Lord, when they grow up they
will still have to make a personal decision to
believe in Jesus Christ in order to be saved.


courtesy: gotquestions.org

Burmak:
Baptism serves to prevent sin from having dominion over us,and there are 2 kinds of sins original & actual.original sin is the one we inherited from our first father adam and everyone by reason of being born of a woman is guilty of this read rom 5:19,ps 51:5.so to remove this sin comes in water baptism and so the church baptises infant to remove that original sin as soon as possible.
Now it is when you have attained the age of reason when you can be said to commit actual sin that holy spirit baptism is needed to strengthen you.in john 3:5 jesus say you can't enter heaven without being born of water to remove original sin & spirit to take care of the actual sin.so we baptise infants with water(and not with spirit) because the earlier the better.shalom

u cant baptise an infant because an infant doesn't believe. the capacity to believe the gospel is not there. infants have no original sin. even if they have, the blood of Jesus covers them. but they did not have sin. an infants who dies will go to heaven because he or she has not committed sin. children cannot inherit the sins of their father. it is the soul that sin that shall die. not another who did not. baptism doesn't wash away sin. it is only the blood of Jesus.

i will give u more details later.

urheme:


That is why the bible is trash,

I don't know how the idea of uprooting dead bodies from their graves, all for purpose of worship got into heads of catholics.

Italo, you should advise them to review the bible so they can religiously include grave vandalism.

they are a cult.

dorox:
I don't understand why some christians would voluntarily subject themselves to the yoke of tithe when Jesus has already removed such burden from the back of christians.

it baffles me too my brother

deb6:
The children of israel r expected to pay their tithe to the lord n his levites numb18:21, heb7:5, lev27:30. But since there r no levites now we do pay to the pastor. Anyway u r free to do whatever u want if u wish pay if not leave, no one is forcing u. Remain bless.

so we convert levite to pastors. Abi?

When i'm back from church we would dig it out. Let's see whether believers can be tagged a robber because they dnt pay tithe.

philfearon:
No...Its better you use the money to Go f**k a.s.hAwo than dash it to someone who does not deserve it....

i rather give it to the poor and orphans.

would you say i am a robber of God because i don't pay tithe? if Jesus comes back to earth now, will he call me a robber? someone that he shed his precious blood for because of tithe? who would Jesus call a robber or thieves? those that are turning his father's house to a place of business or those that are not paying tithe?

christians dnt speak the same thing. if they are one they will speak the same thing.

Boss13:


Point of correction, all are staged. No miracle occurs.

i believe that not all pastors will stage miracles.

u hv nt answered my questions.

only the truth can set us free.

hmm.

well, i cant beg a lady money.