Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well since it was the Catholic Church that compiled the NT under the guidance of the Holy Spirit then it would be them that are mistaken. I guess you would need to take it up with the Holy Spirit that something is wrong.
The church fathers never put into the bible anything that the early apostles or disciples didn't teach. They were very meticulous having church councils to study and either agree on the scriptures or not. Many were not included since it did not agree with what the apostles taught.
It would be a good thing to study Catholic church history. I don't think many here know how the bible came to be.
Hi Janelle. I just thought that I would post this concerning the collection of the New Testament Books.
Excerpt:
For the New Testament, the process of the recognition and collection began in the first centuries of the Christian church. Very early on, some of the New Testament books were being recognized. Paul considered Luke’s writings to be as authoritative as the Old Testament (1 Timothy 5:18; see also Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7). Peter recognized Paul’s writings as Scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16). Some of the books of the New Testament were being circulated among the churches (Colossians 4:16; 1 Thessalonians 5:27). Clement of Rome mentioned at least eight New Testament books (A.D. 95). Ignatius of Antioch acknowledged about seven books (A.D. 115). Polycarp, a disciple of John the apostle, acknowledged 15 books (A.D. 108). Later, Irenaeus mentioned 21 books (A.D. 185). Hippolytus recognized 22 books (A.D. 170-235). The New Testament books receiving the most controversy were Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 John, and 3 John.
Read more: How and when was the canon of the Bible put together?
And for anyone who is interested, here are two good books dealing with the recognition of the canonical status of the New Testament Books.
'The Canon of Scripture' by F. F. Bruce, and 'The Canon of the New Testament' by Bruce M. Metzger. I have both of these.
I was raised as a Catholic. I went to church every Sunday, and went to catechism classes every week on Saturday mornings. I received the sacraments, and was finally married as a Catholic. My wife was also Catholic, but she never knew anything of God except what she was taught in Catholic school. After being married for a short time, I began to realize that many things of Catholic belief needed to be looked into. I remember reading that God said in the Bible not to pray to idols, and as I sat in a pew during a Mass, I looked at the statues up front, and wondered why we were praying to them. I was told that they weren't idols...they were images of saints. Well, it didn't take me long to realize that there was a lot of 'justifying ourselves' going on. This opened me up to realizing that the Mary thing was wrong, the priest being the mediator was wrong, and I was also told that Peter was the first Pope. That was enough!
I more or less put God on the shelf from then on. Later, when I was in the Navy, I was given a Bible to borrow and read, and a group of guys helped me find the Lord near Thessalonica. From this, I learned that the scripture came from God, and it is a major foundation and source of our faith. The first thing that I did when we got back to the states was to go to a bookstore and buy a bible. I still use the same one 42 years later.
As I have progressed in my faith, I have been to many different Christian churches, but each time I go, I find problems with each one. I have learned to 'look the other way' on many things, but some of the errors are horrendous.
When I tell others that I was raised Catholic, the question almost always gets asked, "How could you stay in a church that teaches such false things, and how do other Catholics, (like my relatives), stay there? Well, I can't answer that, and I learned a while back that they are all responsible for themselves. Getting into a debate with them is usually unprofitable, and can cause a lot of hurt feelings and anger. As I have grown over the years, I see that faith in Jesus is important, and the amount of knowledge and degree of the same is given by God in proportion to our desire to know Him and read of Him and spend time with Him. These are things that can't be learned as much as they come from a desire inside of us. So, rather than trying to jam things down anyone's throat, I am better off letting them be who they are, and living my life 'in Christ' to the best of my ability. In this way, I 'walk the talk' instead of 'talking the walk'.
I have an inner drive that keeps me searching for the complete truth. With all the ideas we have, God is still only going to do things in one way...it's up to us to find out what that is. No church or organization or group or person is going to show you what that is. Only Jesus through His word can do it.
So if someone stays in a religion that I think is bogus, so be it. It's their life. I can't read their heart.
One correction I would like to make though, whether it be received and understood, or not.
The quote of 2 Thess. 2:15 about 'tradition' is erroneous. The Greek word 'paradoseis' has been translated as 'tradition'. Actually, it means 'to hand down; bequeath; transmit; transfer. The word 'tradition' was inferred here, but the verse should actually say, "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the things we passed on to you which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." The English translators using the word 'tradition' here, was misleading, because it was teachings that were passed down by Paul and his helpers, not some kind of a tradition. Paul's main interest was always in showing the believer how to successfully reach an intimate relationship with Jesus, not in passing on certain rites, passages, and traditions.
The quote of 2 Thess. 2:15 about 'tradition' is erroneous. The Greek word 'paradoseis' has been translated as 'tradition'. Actually, it means 'to hand down; bequeath; transmit; transfer. The word 'tradition' was inferred here, but the verse should actually say, "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the things we passed on to you which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." The English translators using the word 'tradition' here, was misleading, because it was teachings that were passed down by Paul and his helpers, not some kind of a tradition. Paul's main interest was always in showing the believer how to successfully reach an intimate relationship with Jesus, not in passing on certain rites, passages, and traditions.
You sound like someone that has never been to mass. There is no praying to saints or statues during mass. The mass is all about Jesus Christ.
Your quote above reaffirms the concept of oral tradition. To transmit and hand down is basically the concept of apostolic succession and sacred oral tradition.
I will never understand why Sola Scriptura folks ignore passages that reaffirm the position of thr Catholic Church.
I was raised as a Catholic. I went to church every Sunday, and went to catechism classes every week on Saturday mornings. I received the sacraments, and was finally married as a Catholic. My wife was also Catholic, but she never knew anything of God except what she was taught in Catholic school. After being married for a short time, I began to realize that many things of Catholic belief needed to be looked into. I remember reading that God said in the Bible not to pray to idols, and as I sat in a pew during a Mass, I looked at the statues up front, and wondered why we were praying to them. I was told that they weren't idols...they were images of saints. Well, it didn't take me long to realize that there was a lot of 'justifying ourselves' going on. This opened me up to realizing that the Mary thing was wrong, the priest being the mediator was wrong, and I was also told that Peter was the first Pope. That was enough!
I more or less put God on the shelf from then on. Later, when I was in the Navy, I was given a Bible to borrow and read, and a group of guys helped me find the Lord near Thessalonica. From this, I learned that the scripture came from God, and it is a major foundation and source of our faith. The first thing that I did when we got back to the states was to go to a bookstore and buy a bible. I still use the same one 42 years later.
As I have progressed in my faith, I have been to many different Christian churches, but each time I go, I find problems with each one. I have learned to 'look the other way' on many things, but some of the errors are horrendous.
When I tell others that I was raised Catholic, the question almost always gets asked, "How could you stay in a church that teaches such false things, and how do other Catholics, (like my relatives), stay there? Well, I can't answer that, and I learned a while back that they are all responsible for themselves. Getting into a debate with them is usually unprofitable, and can cause a lot of hurt feelings and anger. As I have grown over the years, I see that faith in Jesus is important, and the amount of knowledge and degree of the same is given by God in proportion to our desire to know Him and read of Him and spend time with Him. These are things that can't be learned as much as they come from a desire inside of us. So, rather than trying to jam things down anyone's throat, I am better off letting them be who they are, and living my life 'in Christ' to the best of my ability. In this way, I 'walk the talk' instead of 'talking the walk'.
I have an inner drive that keeps me searching for the complete truth. With all the ideas we have, God is still only going to do things in one way...it's up to us to find out what that is. No church or organization or group or person is going to show you what that is. Only Jesus through His word can do it.
So if someone stays in a religion that I think is bogus, so be it. It's their life. I can't read their heart.
One correction I would like to make though, whether it be received and understood, or not.
The quote of 2 Thess. 2:15 about 'tradition' is erroneous. The Greek word 'paradoseis' has been translated as 'tradition'. Actually, it means 'to hand down; bequeath; transmit; transfer. The word 'tradition' was inferred here, but the verse should actually say, "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the things we passed on to you which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." The English translators using the word 'tradition' here, was misleading, because it was teachings that were passed down by Paul and his helpers, not some kind of a tradition. Paul's main interest was always in showing the believer how to successfully reach an intimate relationship with Jesus, not in passing on certain rites, passages, and traditions.
How does your wife feel about you dropping away from the church? Your list of why you fell away is all false beliefs. Those are not Catholic beliefs. Just because you attended Catholic schools and went to bible study doesn't mean you understand it all, you could have had uninformed teachers or not very good ones.
It seems you did not want to believe what they were teaching you anyway. The statues ARE NOT IDOLS but you continue to believe they are. It's like the teacher teaching you 2 plus 2 is 4 and you say no, it is not. Why go to school if you will not believe what the teacher is teaching? I am interested in finding the truth and I believe the Catholic church has it just like many others have, even Protestant ministers who were out to find the Church wrong but in the end had to agree and convert to it.
Hi Janelle. I just thought that I would post this concerning the collection of the New Testament Books.
Excerpt:
For the New Testament, the process of the recognition and collection began in the first centuries of the Christian church. Very early on, some of the New Testament books were being recognized. Paul considered Luke’s writings to be as authoritative as the Old Testament (1 Timothy 5:18; see also Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7). Peter recognized Paul’s writings as Scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16). Some of the books of the New Testament were being circulated among the churches (Colossians 4:16; 1 Thessalonians 5:27). Clement of Rome mentioned at least eight New Testament books (A.D. 95). Ignatius of Antioch acknowledged about seven books (A.D. 115). Polycarp, a disciple of John the apostle, acknowledged 15 books (A.D. 108). Later, Irenaeus mentioned 21 books (A.D. 185). Hippolytus recognized 22 books (A.D. 170-235). The New Testament books receiving the most controversy were Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 John, and 3 John.
Read more: How and when was the canon of the Bible put together?
And for anyone who is interested, here are two good books dealing with the recognition of the canonical status of the New Testament Books.
'The Canon of Scripture' by F. F. Bruce, and 'The Canon of the New Testament' by Bruce M. Metzger. I have both of these.
Yes, all Catholic. The Catholic Church was the only Christian church so it was all put together by the Catholic Church. Not until Martin Luther came along did the bible get a rewrite and had some books thrown out but only to suit Luther's beliefs.
And thanks, pastor ALly, for that little tidbit about the Council of Nicea. It's always good to learn the truth!
Thanks, after reading what you wrote, I find we have much in common. You're the one deserving the compliment for having the courage to put your story out there.
Yes, all Catholic. The Catholic Church was the only Christian church so it was all put together by the Catholic Church. Not until Martin Luther came along did the bible get a rewrite and had some books thrown out but only to suit Luther's beliefs.
Janelle, you misunderstand my reason for posting that post. The true church - the universal or 'catholic' church refers to the body of Christ which is a living organism composed of all church age believers. The fact that the 'Roman Catholic church' uses the word 'catholic' does not make it the true church. The Roman Catholic church is an organization which makes claims for itself which simply are not true. The church of Rome which eventually morphed into Roman Catholicism was but one local church among many, and took beliefs for itself which are right out of the Babylonian religion.
I simply posted some information from the 'Got Questions' site about how and when the New Testament Books were brought under one cover.
Janelle, you misunderstand my reason for posting that post. The universal or catholic church refers to the body of Christ which is a living organism composed of all church age believers. The fact that the 'Roman Catholic church' uses the word 'catholic' does not make it the true church. The Roman Catholic church is an organization which makes claims for itself which are simply not true. The church of Rome which eventually morphed into Roman Catholicism was but one local church among many, and took beliefs for itself which are right out of the Babylonian religion.
I simply posted some information from the 'Got Questions' site about how and when the New Testament Books were brought under one cover.
The Roman Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ. The earliest Christians are the saints and martyrs of the Roman Catholic Church. Study it's history.
The Roman Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ. The earliest Christians are the saints and martyrs of the Roman Catholic Church. Study it's history.
Janelle, I am aware of what the Roman Catholic church is and is not. And it was not founded by Jesus Christ. What was founded by Jesus Christ was the new creation in which both Jews and Gentiles are brought together into one body called 'Church'.
2 Cor. 5:17 Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come.
That is what was founded by Jesus.
Again, the Roman Catholic religion evolved out of the church of Rome which was a particular church organization. The 'mother church' if you will was not the church at Rome (a particular assembly of believers) which gave birth to Roman Catholicism, but was actually the Jerusalem church. The church at Rome as I said gradually morphed over time into the apostate Roman Catholic religion and took for itself many concepts from the Babylonian religion.
But I will leave the arguing to everyone else. Again, my original post on this thread was simply to provide that link to the 'Got Questions' site concerning the recognition of the NT canon.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
