***CONSTANTINE and the CHURCH HISTORY!!!

[Kenshiro]

---

@kenshiro




-Kenshiro you've made good advice to your fellow protestants here in this forum namely santopaps, wordofgod, et al. Good job dude. If I may ask do you know the term double standard? I believe you do. Just open your eyes and you will see that protestants are very hostile to Catholics. Now in the case of Dcuenco, how can we attack his belief system when hes not even disclosing the name of his church. its funny to know that hes using recycled argument from seventh day Adventist but he claims that he doesn't belong to that church. If you assess it, is simply an intellectual/academic dishonesty. He even entitled the thread using the word "history" but he just using the argument from a different sect just to suit his agenda. How can he claim that it is part of recorded history when the author of that argument is anti catholic and biased. He doesn't have rights to use the word "history" in the first place. He can't even give an independent historians that supports his argument which is merely borrowed from different belief system.



This is a contradiction from your post above. attacking a belief system is also attacking a religion because as a definition religion is a set of belief. You even said above "It would be better to attack the belief system" in which You contradicted your self.



-I know your talking about me. If he can't provide at least 3 independent reputable historians that accusation is equivalent to "TSISMIS".



-Who would provide a substantive arguments, the accuser or the defender?
FYI the burden of proof must be on the accuser's side.



-Contradiction again. it is a tautology. the words that merely repeat elements of the meaning already conveyed.
It is also a money making because most protestant churches required their members to contribute 10 % of their income.



Catholic doctrines don't have any contradictions. all teachings are biblical and apostolic. It sounded unblibical when Luther removed the seven books.
The word contradiction is applicable to your protestant churches. Now if your church has no contradictions to the scriptures why protestant/evangelical churches have different interpretations from the so called collective study?



-Did you know that Luther successfully removed the seven books but he failed to remove James. Kinsa may blasphemous?




-that is logical fallacy called straw Man. Give us an official teaching and document from Catechism of the Catholic Church that the pope has higher authority than Christ. If you can't give us an official teaching, then I have the right to say that it is TSISMIS.




How can you logically infer from that verse that penance is exercising higher authority than Christ?

-During his lifetime Christ sent out his followers to do his work. Just before he left this world, he gave the apostles special authority, commissioning them to make God’s forgiveness present to all people, and the whole Christian world accepted this, until just a few centuries ago. If there is an "invention" here, it is not the sacrament of penance, but the notion that the sacramental forgiveness of sins is not to be found in the Bible or in early Christian history.



Who gave Luther the authority to remove those books?

-Did you know that Luther successfully removed the seven books but he failed to remove James. Kinsa may blasphemous?

I was waiting for you to say this. There are obvious reasons why.

Following are the reasons the Apocrypha are rejected by Bible believers:

1. They are not included in the original Hebrew O.T. preserved by the Jews. Rom. 3:1-2 states that God used the Jews to preserve His Word; therefore, we know that He guided them in the rejection of the Apocryphal books from the canon of Scripture.

2. They were not received as inspired Scripture by the churches during the first four centuries after Christ.

3. They were not written in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and prophets of the O.T.

4. They do not claim to be the inspired Word of God. Unlike the inspired Scriptures, the Apocryphal books contain no statements such as "thus saith the Lord" or "these are the words of God."

5. They contain teachings contrary to the biblical books. II Maccabees teaches praying to the dead and making offerings to atone for the sins of the dead. Consider this quote from II Maccabees 12:43-45: "He also took up a collection ... and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. ... For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen asleep would arise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead ... Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin." The Bible, though, says there is only one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus (1 Ti. 2:5-6). Also Heb. 10:10-14 says believers have been perfected forever through Christ's one sacrifice. Thus, the dead in Christ need no human, earthly prayers or offerings. At death the lost go immediately to a place of torment; thus there is no purpose in praying for them (Lk. 16:22-23). II Maccabees also contains the heresy that deceased saints are interceding in heaven for those on earth (15:11-14). The Bible teaches that it is the Lord Jesus Christ, our great High Priest, who is interceding for us in Heaven--not deceased saints (Heb. 4:14-16; 8:1-2; 1 Jn. 2:1-2).

6. In quality and style, the Apocryphal books are not on the level of Bible writings. Even a hurried reading of the Apocryphal books reveals the fact that here we are touching the uninspired writings of men apart from divine inspiration. These writings are not "God breathed," as 2 Tim. 3:16 says all Scripture is. There is not in the Apocryphal books the supernatural depth and breadth of thought, the rich complexity yet simplicity of language, which goes beyond mere writings of men.

7. The Apocryphal writings are not quoted by the Lord Jesus or the Apostles, while every part of the O.T. Scriptures are quoted. This is a very important point. Though some claim to find allusions to the Apocrypha in certain N.T. passages (Mt. 7:12; 27:43-54; Rom. 9:21; Eph. 6:13-17; Heb. 1:3; Jam. 1:6,19; 5:6), this is not a proven fact. While it is possible that the N.T. writers were familiar with the Apocrypha, it is plain that they did not directly quote from these books. The supposed allusions to the Apocrypha in the N.T. could just as easily be allusions to other O.T. histories or to facts given directly by revelation. We must remember that the N.T. Scriptures are not the product of man, but of God.

8. Some Apocryphal books, though written as history, are actually fiction. This is a form of deception not found in divinely inspired books of the Bible. "Ostensibly historical but actually quite imaginative are the books of Tobit, Judith, Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon, which may be called moralistic novels" (Oxford Annotated Apocrypha, p. xi). Noteworthy examples of ancient fiction they might be, but such books have absolutely no place among the seven-times purified Word of God (Ps. 12:6-7).

9. The Apocryphal books were rejected from the canon of Scripture by the early church leaders. "It is a significant fact that the best of the early Fathers adopted the Hebrew canon as giving the authoritative Scriptures of the O.T." (Analytical, p. 1083).

10. The book of Tobit contains many false things.

First, there is the account of a supposed high and good angel of God who lies and teaches the use of magic! In Tobit 5:4 we are told that the angel's name is "Raphael," but later he lies to Tobit, claiming to be "Azarias the son of the great Ananias, one of your relatives" (Tobit 5:12). This angel professes to be "one of the seven holy angels who present the prayers of the saints and enter into the presence of the glory of the Holy One" (Tobit 12:15). Yet he not only lies about his name, but teaches magic. "Then the angel said to him, `Cut open the fish and take the heart and liver and gall and put them away safely.' ... Then the young man said to the angel, `Brother Azarias, of what use is the liver and heart and gall of the fish?' He replied, `As for the heart and the liver, if a demon or evil spirit gives trouble to any one, you make a smoke from these before the man or woman, and that person will never be troubled again. And as for the gall, anoint with it a man who has white films in his eyes, and he will be cured'" (Tobit 6:4,6-. The Bible clearly condemns magical practices such as this (consider De. 18:10-12; Le. 19:26,31; Je. 27:9; Mal. 3:5).

Second, the false doctrine of salvation through works is taught in the book of Tobit. "For almsgiving delivers from death, and it will purge away every sin" (Tobit 12:9). "So now, my children, consider what almsgiving accomplishes and how righteousness delivers" (Tobit 14:11). These false teachings must be contrasted with Lev. 17:11, which says "it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul," and with Tit. 3:5 which says, "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Spirit."

Third, Tobit taught that help is only to be given to the deserving. "Place your bread on the grave of the righteous, but give none to sinners" (Tobit 4:17). Contrariwise, in Ex. 23:4-5 God taught even in O.T. times that His people were to do good to their enemies and not only toward the righteous.

11. The book of Judith contains the account of how a supposedly godly widow destroyed one of Nebuchadnezzar's generals through deceit and sexual offers. It is also important to note that Judith's counsel regarding resisting Nebuchadnezzar was contrary to that given by God's prophet Jeremiah (Jer. 38:1-4). God warned the Israelites to submit to Nebuchadnezzar rather than to resist, because the Babylonian captivity and destruction of Israel was a judgment from God upon the Jew's rebellion and idolatry.

The King James Bible and the Apocrypha
It is true that early editions of the KJV (as well as many other Reformation Bibles, including the German Luther Bible) contained the Apocrypha, but these books were included for historical reference only, not as additions to the canon of Scripture. Alexander McClure, a biographer of the KJV translators, says: "...the Apocryphal books in those times were more read and accounted of than now, though by no means placed on a level with the canonical books of Scripture" (McClure, Translators Revived, p. 185). He then lists seven reasons assigned by the KJV translators for rejecting the Apocrypha as inspired. The Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England clearly states that the Apocrypha have no scriptural authority. "...[the Church of England] doth not apply to them to establish any doctrine." The Westminster Confession says, "The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of the Scripture; and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings." Luther included a note on the Apocrypha which stated, "These are books not to be held in equal esteem with those of Holy Scripture..."

It is important to note that in the early King James Bibles the Apocryphal books were placed between the Old and New Testaments rather than intermingled within the O.T. itself as is done in Catholic Bibles. In the Jerusalem Bible (a Catholic Bible), for example, Tobit, Judith, and the Maccabees follow Nehemiah; the Book of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus follow Ecclesiastes; Baruch follows Lamentations; etc.

No matter what trickery does evil to mix truth with error it can't touch the real truth.
Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."
John 8:32

-Contradiction again. it is a tautology. the words that merely repeat elements of the meaning already conveyed.
It is also a money making because most protestant churches required their members to contribute 10 % of their income.

You are generalizing again. who do think has more grandous church buildings.
You do know there are coca cola religions right?

Do you know a lot of protestant denomination churches today are corrupted?
More importantly Do you know why?

My son, heretofore you have been taught to act the dissembler: among Roman Catholics to be a Roman Catholic, and to be a spy even among your own brethren; to believe no man, to trust no man. Among the Reformers, to be a reformer; among the Huguenots, to be a Huguenot; among the Calvinists, to be a Calvinist; among other Protestants, generally to be a Protestant, and obtaining their confidence, to seek even to preach from their pulpits, and to denounce with all the vehemence in your nature our Holy Religion and the Pope; and even to descend so low as to become a Jew among Jews, that you might be enabled to gather together all information for the benefit of your Order as a faithful soldier of the Pope.

[rclong_rey]

@ ketllac: sagdi lang na sila kay pride ra nang ilaha...wala gani na sila kabalo unsay konabuhi sa ilang founder..basta sure ta nga ang Catholic Ginoo mismo ang nag tukod ug dili si kinsang tawhana lang...

supposed Bible alone is the source of truth., without catholic church, can the Bible be exist as it is right now? and if it exist, do you have proof of authenticity? all of you knew that the authentic original compiled books were in Vatican the Latin vulgate..is there any non catholic can opposed on that? ug naa then pakitai mi ug proof nga ang inyo maoy sakto...then ug sakto mo sa pag interpret sa Bible kay nakatukod man mo ug inyoha, nasayop diay si saint jerome pag translate ana kay kami naman nuon ang sayup karun nga maoy nagcompile ug nagtranslate from Hebrew, Aramaic and greek to latin..

LInks below will help other religion to know ug sakto ba sila:
My Challenge to Christians
the church or the Bible?-> Douay-Rheims Bible Online, The Church Or The Bible
The One True Church -> Douay-Rheims Bible Online, The One True Church
Against the reformer-> Douay-Rheims Bible Online, Against The Reformers

[yanong_banikanhon]

Do you know a lot of protestant denomination churches today are corrupted?

So ang imong rang pundok maoy dili corrupt? Kanang pundok ni dcuenco corrupted pud diay na nga pareha ra man ang inyong basis - private interpretation of the bible inubanan sa prayer for guidance?

Daghan mang christian denominations nga matud nimo corrupted even if they are following the bible alone (sola scriptura).

Sa ato pa, dili diay enough nga mangayo lang og guidance sa holy spirit kay daghan mang tinuoray nangayo og guidance pero nagkasumpakiay man ang ilang interpretation sa nakasulat sa bibliya?

[Kenshiro]

I furthermore promise and declare that I will, when opportunity present, make and wage relentless war, secretly or openly, against all heretics, Protestants and Liberals, as I am directed to do, to extirpate and exterminate them from the face of the whole earth; and that I will spare neither age, *** or condition; and that I will hang, waste, boil, flay, strangle and bury alive these infamous heretics, rip up the stomachs and wombs of their women and crush their infants' heads against the walls, in order to annihilate forever their execrable race. That when the same cannot be done openly, I will secretly use the poisoned cup, the strangulating cord, the steel of the poniard or the leaden bullet, regardless of the honor, rank, dignity, or authority of the person or persons, whatever may be their condition in life, either public or private, as I at any time may be directed so to do by any agent of the Pope or Superior of the Brotherhood of the Holy Faith, of the Society of Jesus.

Who inspires these kinds of Acts
The primary reason for the inquisition is because to eliminate the protestants and did with horrendous methods but unfortunately for them were unsuccessful.

[rclong_rey]

So ang imong rang pundok maoy dili corrupt? Kanang pundok ni dcuenco corrupted pud diay na nga pareha ra man ang inyong basis - private interpretation of the bible inubanan sa prayer for guidance?

Daghan mang christian denominations nga matud nimo corrupted even if they are following the bible alone (sola scriptura).

Sa ato pa, dili diay enough nga mangayo lang og guidance sa holy spirit kay daghan mang tinuoray nangayo og guidance pero nagkasumpakiay man ang ilang interpretation sa nakasulat sa bibliya?

tinuod naay daghang nangayo(nagtawag). si Hesus mismo miingun nga dili tanang nagtawag nako ug Ginoo maluwas...
i will give you some analogy sir...suppose you want to go to bohol(gusto jud nimo moadto ug bohol) pero kay wla ka nagbinantayun sa pagsakay nakasakay ka ug para leyte kay gatupad ra man ang barko...Bible alone do not define itself mao nga maglahi ang interpretasyon..ang bugtong makahubad ana ang simbahan lang ug dili ang usag usa.. another analogy regarding paghubad sa Bible...kabalo ta sa balaod ug nakabasa ta ana but only the court can define it expoundly(ang nasud naay corte(provencial, supreme, municipal cour of appeal) para maoy mo hubad sa balaud...imagine a nation without a court...peritng gubuta sa mao nay mahitabo ug i private interpret nato ang Bible...

[yanong_banikanhon]

^^ Sakto gyud, bay. Tan-awa gani ang interpretation sa mga nisumiter anang 'bible alone' nga pamaagi sa pagsabot sa pulong sa Dios, di ba nagkalandrakas, nagka-contradict. Actually magkahiusa lang ning mga pundoka kun mangataki sa katoliko. Pero kun magkahibal-anay ni sila sa ilang tagsa2x ka pundok, magbinombahay ra gihapon sila. Mao nay usa sa rason nganong dili mosulti si @dcuenco sa iyang tinuohan kay hadlok man siya atakihon ni @santopaps o ni @Kenshiro. Hehehe...

[malic_2]

Better a witty fool than a foolish wit.


Catholic scholars are far better than the Protestant scholars.

[THE SKULLS]

Intermission sa ta ha.

You can watch "Goya's Ghost"

Starred by Natalie Portman

[dcuenco]

@kenshiro. Thank you for posting the reasons why the apocrypha books were not included. I especially like item #7 where it is said that Jesus or any of His apostles never quoted from these books. Also the apocrypha was never part of the OT and the NT while the catholic bible mixes it with the OT.

Some just do not understand that the OT and the NT are promises of God (testaments) given by the prophets, Jesus, and the apostles. They think of the bible as a book from scholars and "intellectuals". The maccabees for example, was written by a group of Jewish rebels. How can this be divinely inspired?

[dcuenco]

The bible alone (OT and NT), should be the sole source of doctrine for Christians. Mura unta ni ug constitution ba. When some policies or laws are introduced that CONTRADICT to the constitution, that particular law should be repealed.

Pwerte jung kuyawa kung mu ingon nga bible AND a church or a certain person like the pope. What if ma sayop na nga church or particular person nga tawo ra gud na sila. In the medieval times for example, christians were blindly following the pope and a church that was into immoral acts, corruption, and even mass murder.

Bisan karon, daghang mga grupo nga pag sugod, ni tuo pa ug bible, pero hinay hinay ni lihay sa bible teachings unya na himo nang kulto.

Mao, na, it is CRUCIAL for a certain group that claims to be christians to follow God's Word in the Bible. I find absolutely nothing wrong with a person who genuinely seeks the truth in the bible and seeks God's guidance to see the truth in prayer - some people who never had an encounter with God through reading His Words in the Bible can never understand this.