RELIGION....(part 2)

[mannyamador]

---

You are distorting the truth.....

Uh, no, YOU are the expert in that field.

how the Roman church has to differentiate atonement from forgiveness or classifying sins as mortal and venial

Your attempts at distortion betray a truly shameless, dishonest character. In case you forgot, the Bible itself contains clear illustrations of the difference. But of course you choose to gloss over that fact.

From: The Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12575a.htm)
The Catholic doctrine of purgatory supposes the fact that some die with smaller faults
for which there was no true repentance, and also the fact that the temporal penalty
due to sin is it times not wholly paid in this life. The proofs for the Catholic position,
both in Scripture and in Tradition, are bound up also with the practice of praying for
the dead. For why pray for the dead, if there be no belief in the power of prayer to
afford solace to those who as yet are excluded from the sight of God? So true is this
position that prayers for the dead and the existence of a place of purgation are
mentioned in conjunction in the oldest passages of the Fathers, who allege reasons
for succouring departed souls

Old Testasment reference:
2 Maccabees 12:43-46

New Testament references:
Matthew 12:32
1 Corinthians 3:11-15

Early Christian writers:
St. Ambrose (commentary on the text, and Sermo xx in Ps. cxvii),
St. Jerome, (Comm. in Amos, c. iv),
St. Augustine (Comm. in Ps. xxxvii),
St. Gregory (Dial., IV, xxxix), and
Origen (Hom. vi in Exod.).

More to the point, YOU continue to spread MAN-MADE false doctrines such as sola scriptura (claiming scripture is the SOLE rule of faith or the SOLE authoritative source of doctrine) and sola fide (salvation by faith ALONE). Both are NOT in the Bible.

Again, I challlenge you for the umpteenth time, show me even a single verse in the Bible that explicitly teaches your two false doctrines. So far, all you've shown us is YOUR PERSONAL interpretation, which isn't really worth squat. Any Yahoo can make such claism, but it's another thing to prove them. You've failed to prove your points so far. Take up the challenge. And please try not to take a lifetime to do so.

Houston can you hear me, ground control can you feel me need permission to land!

Clear evidence of madness here...

[lahingpinoy]

Ang ugat na dahilan ng kasamaan sa mundo ay ang maling pagsamba di lamang ng mga pagano kundi maging ng mga katoliko na nagsasabing kumikilala sa Diyos subalit sumasamba sa larawan. Tungkol dito ay may sinasabi ang paring katoliko na si Charles Chiniquy sa kanyang aklat na “Fifty Years in the Church of Rome.�
“Nang tanungin namin ang isa’t isa , ‘Ano ang kaibahan ng relihiyong paganong Roma at ng Roma (na relihiyong katolika) sa ngayon?’ Mahigit sa isang mag-aaral ang sasagot: ‘ Ang tanging kaibahanan ay sa pangalan. Ang mga templo ng diyus-diyusan ay pareho: ang mga diyus-diyusan ay namamalagi sa kanilang kinalagyan. Ngayon, gaya ng dati, ang gayunding mga insenso ay sinusunog sa pagsamba sa kanila at sa paghingi sa kanila ng tulong; subalit sa halip na tawagin itong rebulto ni Jupiter, tinawag naming itong Pedro; at sa halip na tawaging Minerva o Venus, ito ay tinawag na Santa Maria. Ito ay ang matandangÂ* idolatriya na dumating sa atin sa ilalim ng mga pangalang Cristiano’.â€� (p.51 mula sa inglis)
Ayon sa paring katoliko na si Chiniquy, walang kaibahan ang relihiyong paganong Roma at ang Iglesia katolika sa ngayon. Ang Iglesia katolika Romana ay sumasamba rin sa mga larawan at rebulto. Sinabi ng paring si Chiniquy na ito ay ang matandang idolatriya o pagsamba sa diyus-diyusan. Ang turing niya sa katolisismo ay paganismong nakatago sa pangalangÂ* “Cristianoâ€� :
“Ang ating relihiyon (ang katolisismo), kung gayon ay maituturing na wala, kundi Paganismo na nakatago sa ilalim ng pangalang Cristiano. Ang Cristianismo sa mga kolehiyo o kumbento sa Roma ay kakatwang gayon na lamang na pinaghalong paganismo at pamahiin, na kapuwa katawa-tawa at isip-bata, at ng mga nakasisindak na kasinungalingan." (p.56 mula sa Inglis)
Kung anu-anong aral na pagano at pamahiin ang ipinunla ng Iglesia Katolika sa mga tao.

[yanbupipers]

hala ka woi...

unsay may imong relihiyon ug baroganan nyor?

[Cardinal Bunal]

1 Corinthians 3:11-15

This speaks about the building up of God's spiritual temple, (in context of Ephesians 2: 22 or 1 Peter 2: 4 - 8 ) if one part of the building burns up (a backslider), the builder will be saved but as if passing through fire because his work has been burned up. I planted Apollos watered: - 1 Cor. 3: 6

And again and again in Col. 1: 24, it speaks of Paul's sufferings and OUR sufferings for the sake of the Gospel, see verse 23.... also 2 Tim. 2: 9......

As for Maccabees, I've said many times here, the Deuterocanonicals are NOT Written Word per se!!!! :b

There is no longer an offering for sin. - Heb 9: 25 - 27, Heb. 10: 18

-----------

And PER SE it isn't the conviction of "Scripture being the sole rule of faith" that I try to prove....... but Scriptures being useful enough for the knowledge of Eternal Life (Jn 20: 31, 1 Jn 5: 13) and for people being equipped with every good work (2 Tim. 3: 17) and when these things I quote here were written when the Scriptures weren't yet complete? How much more useful will the Documents be when today it IS complete? There are other events NOT chronicled in the Holy Writ (Jn 20: 30) but what other truths do we need to know when the Truth of Salvation is revealed?

And the reason of the RCC for rejecting the Scriptures as the sole reference for the church is that it does NOT contain all the necessary truths for salvation (My Catholic Faith by Bishop Morrow) there is so much bombast in this...

No one can take credit for forming the Bible much like the Jews nor the Romans can take credit for crucifying Jesus.... The Pharaoh cannot even take credit for forming the Nile.

Does the axe stand up against it's wielder? Or the rod against the one who uses it? - Isaiah 10: 15

And again, no church Council established canon, but merely re-affirmed it.

---------

For Sola Fide..... it is NOT NECESSARILY unscriptural..... because we are saved by grace through faith and NOT by works (Eph. 2: 8, 9, Rom 4: 4 - 5 ) and if we are chosen by grace it is NOT by works otherwise it wouldn't be grace (Rom. 11: 6 ) and it is a thesis of faith because it starts with faith and ends with faith (Rom. 1: 17) and because we are God's workmanship, we are saved so we will do the good works that God has prepared us to do (Eph. 2: 10) hence our faith will be justified by what we do (James 2: 18, 24) and let the one who confesses the Name of the Lord depart from iniquity (2 Tim. 2: 19 ) And it is God who works in us when we work out our salvation. (Philippians 1: 6, 2: 12, 13)

And this righteousness is NOT our own, but it is that of Christ's. (2 Cor. 5: 21)

------

I'll end here, and I am NOT apologetic if there will be any Anti-Biblical charismatics who take offense at the "verse quoting". Ciao.

;b

[mannyamador]

1 Corinthians 3:11-15

This speaks about the building up of God's spiritual temple, (in context of Ephesians 2: 22 or 1 Peter 2: 4 - 8 ) if one part of the building burns up (a backslider), the builder will be saved but as if passing through fire because his work has been burned up. I planted Apollos watered: - 1 Cor. 3: 6

That's just YOUR interpretation, but what makes it any more authoritative than any other? Or, for that matter, how is your perosnal interpretation more authoritative than the interpretation of the Church that put together the Bible in the first place? IT ISN'T.

As for Maccabees, I've said many times here, the Deuterocanonicals are NOT Written Word per se!!!!

Wrong again. That's YOUR unfounded claim. Show me proof that it isn't. You have not been able to show a single shred of evidence to back up your false claim. On the other hand, I have already cited proof that it IS the part of the Word. To wit:

• It is part of the Alexandrian canon, used in the Septuagint version of the Scriptures, which was in wide use among the Hellenized Jews. This is proof that St Paul's early Christian converts (who were mainly Hellenized, greek-speaking Jews) used this version. James Akin points this out more clearly:
  
  Defending the Deuterocanonicals
  http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/DEUTEROS.HTM
  The Christian acceptance of the deuterocanonical books was logical because the deuterocanonicals were also
  included in the Septuagint, the Greek edition of the Old Testament which the apostles used to evangelize
  the world. Two thirds of the Old Testament quotations in the New are from the Septuagint. Yet the apostles
  nowhere told their converts to avoid seven books of it. Like the Jews all over the world who used the
  Septuagint, the early Christians accepted the books they found in it. They knew that the apostles would not
  mislead them and endanger their souls by putting false scriptures in their hands -- especially without warning
  them against them.
  
  
• The deuterocanonical books, including Maccabees, are referred to in the New Testament. In fact, Maccabees is explicitly referred to as being part of Scripture! It is in Hebrews 11 which tells Christians to emulate the heroes of the Old Testament. Note that in Hebrews 11:35 it says:
  
  "Women received their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, that they might
  rise again to a better life"
  
  James Akin points out:
  
  There are a couple of examples of women receiving back their dead by resurrection in the Protestant Old
  Testament. You can find Elijah raising the son of the widow of Zarepheth in 1 Kings 17, and you can find his
  successor Elisha raising the son of the Shunammite woman in 2 Kings 4, but one thing you can never find --
  anywhere in the Protestant Old Testament, from front to back, from Genesis to Malachi -- is someone
  being tortured and refusing to accept release for the sake of a better resurrection. If you want to find that,
  you have to look in the Catholic Old Testament—in the deuterocanonical books Martin Luther cut out of his Bible.
  
  The story is found in 2 Maccabees 7, where we read that during the Maccabean persecution, "It happened
  also that seven brothers and their mother were arrested and were being compelled by the king, under
  torture with whips and cords, to partake of unlawful swine's flesh. . . . but the brothers and their mother
  encouraged one another to die nobly, saying, 'The Lord God is watching over us and in truth has compassion
  on us . . . ' After the first brother had died . . . they brought forward the second for their sport. . . . he in
  turn underwent tortures as the first brother had done. And when he was at his last breath, he said, 'You
  accursed wretch, you dismiss us from this present life, but the King of the universe will raise us up to an
  everlasting renewal of life'" (2 Macc. 7:1, 5-9).
  
  One by one the sons die, proclaiming that they will be vindicated in the resurrection, in 2 Macc. 7:20-23, 29.
  
  This is a clear reference to 2 Maccabees in the New Testament! Clear proof that 2 Maccabees IS part of the Written Word.
  
  
  
• Finally, there is a mountain of evidence that the early Christians used the Septuagint (which included Maccabees) as their
  Scripture as shown by numerous documents by the early Christian Fathers of the Church.
  
  -- The Didache 4:5 (AD 70) cites Sirach 4:31
  -- The Letter of Barnabas (AD 74) cites Wis. 2:12.
  -- Clement of Rome (AD 80) cites Wis. 12:12.
  -- Polycarp of Smyrna cites (AD 135) Tobit 4:10, 12:9.
  -- Irenaeus (AD 189) cites Daniel 13 and Baruch 4:36—5:9. Daniel 13 is not in the Protestant Bible.
  -- Hippolytus (AD 204) cites the story of Susannah which is in Daniel 13.
  -- Cyprian of Carthage (AD 24 cites Wisdom 3:4, 1 Maccabees 2:52. In AD 253 he cites Daniel 14:5.
  

And PER SE it isn't the conviction of "Scripture being the sole rule of faith" that I try to prove

So do you admit then that the Bible is NOT the sole rule of faith? A simple yes or no will be sufficient. Try not to obfuscate again.

And the reason of the RCC for rejecting the Scriptures as the sole reference for the church is that it does NOT contain all the necessary truths for salvation

You are misrepresenting the doctrine of the Church. You are lying outright!

The Church teaches that the scriptures do not contain all the truths ABOUT salvation, not FOR salvation. There is only one truth necessary FOR salvation, and you don't need a Bible to hear it: that you must live your life in a manner that acknowledges (explicitly ro implicitly) Christ as Lord. Or do you deny this?

No one can take credit for forming the Bible...
And again, no church Council established canon, but merely re-affirmed it.

Again, that's an unfounded claim. Kindly provide me with any authoritative Christian document pre-dating the Church councils with the complete, error-free canon. I've asked you for this before, and as usual, you failed. You provided ZERO evidence. Your claim is plainly unfounded.

No, there was no authoritative canon established until the Catholic Church established it. The Councils were the first authoritative bodies to determine the canon. NO AUTHORITATIVE CANON EXISTED BEFORE THIS. If you dispute this, then show me an authoritative canon.

You CAN'T, right? I thought so.

For Sola Fide..... it is NOT NECESSARILY unscriptural..... because we are saved by grace through faith and NOT by works

Wrong. read James 2:16-25, who plainly contradicts your erroneous personal interpretation.

What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?
If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and has no food for the day, and one of you says to them, "Go in
peace, keep warm, and eat well," but you do not give them the necessities of the body, what good is it?
So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead. Indeed someone might say, "You have faith and I
have works." Demonstrate your faith to me without works, and I will demonstrate my faith to you from my
works. You believe that God is one. You do well. Even the demons believe that and tremble. Do you want
proof, you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless? Was not Abraham our father justified by works
when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith
was completed by the works. Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was
credited to him as righteousness," and he was called "the friend of God." See how a person is justified by
works and not by faith alone. And in the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when
she welcomed the messengers and sent them out by a different route? For just as a body without a spirit is
dead, so also faith without works is dead.

[mannyamador]

DEFENDING THE DEUTEROCANONICALS (Part 1)
James Akin
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/DEUTEROS.HTM

When Catholics and Protestants talk about "the Bible," the two groups actually have two different books in mind.

In the sixteenth century, the Protestant Reformers removed a large section of the Old Testament that was not compatible with their theology. They charged that these writings were not inspired Scripture and branded them with the pejorative title "Apocrypha."

Catholics refer to them as the "deuterocanonical" books (since they were disputed by a few early authors and their canonicity was established later than the rest), while the rest are known as the "protocanonical" books (since their canonicity was established first).

Following the Protestant attack on the integrity of the Bible, the Catholic Church infallibly reaffirmed the divine inspiration of the deuterocanonical books at the Council of Trent in 1546. In doing this, it reaffirmed what had been believed since the time of Christ.

Who Compiled the Old Testament?

The Church does not deny that there are ancient writings which are "apocryphal." During the early Christian era, there were scores of manuscripts which purported to be Holy Scripture but were not. Many have survived to the present day, like the Apocalypse of Peter and the Gospel of Thomas, which all Christian churches regard as spurious writings that don't belong in Scripture.

During the first century, the Jews disagreed as to what constituted the canon of Scripture. In fact, there were a large number of different canons in use, including the growing canon used by Christians. In order to combat the spreading Christian cult, rabbis met at the city of Jamnia or Javneh in A.D. 90 to determine which books were truly the Word of God. They pronounced many books, including the Gospels, to be unfit as scriptures. This canon also excluded seven books (Baruch, Sirach, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, and the Wisdom of Solomon, plus portions of Esther and Daniel) that Christians considered part of the Old Testament.

The group of Jews which met at Javneh became the dominant group for later Jewish history, and today most Jews accept the canon of Javneh. However, some Jews, such as those from Ethiopia, follow a different canon which is identical to the Catholic Old Testament and includes the seven deuterocanonical books (cf. Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 6, p. 1147).

Needless to say, the Church disregarded the results of Javneh. First, a Jewish council after the time of Christ is not binding on the followers of Christ. Second, Javneh rejected precisely those documents which are foundational for the Christian Church—the Gospels and the other documents of the New Testament. Third, by rejecting the deuterocanonicals, Javneh rejected books which had been used by Jesus and the apostles and which were in the edition of the Bible that the apostles used in everyday life—the Septuagint.

The Apostles & the Deuteros

The Christian acceptance of the deuterocanonical books was logical because the deuterocanonicals were also included in the Septuagint, the Greek edition of the Old Testament which the apostles used to evangelize the world. Two thirds of the Old Testament quotations in the New are from the Septuagint. Yet the apostles nowhere told their converts to avoid seven books of it. Like the Jews all over the world who used the Septuagint, the early Christians accepted the books they found in it. They knew that the apostles would not mislead them and endanger their souls by putting false scriptures in their hands—especially without warning them against them.

But the apostles did not merely place the deuterocanonicals in the hands of their converts as part of the Septuagint. They regularly referred to the deuterocanonicals in their writings. For example, Hebrews 11 encourages us to emulate the heroes of the Old Testament and in the Old Testament "Women received their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, that they might rise again to a better life" (Heb. 11:35).

There are a couple of examples of women receiving back their dead by resurrection in the Protestant Old Testament. You can find Elijah raising the son of the widow of Zarepheth in 1 Kings 17, and you can find his successor Elisha raising the son of the Shunammite woman in 2 Kings 4, but one thing you can never find—anywhere in the Protestant Old Testament, from front to back, from Genesis to Malachi—is someone being tortured and refusing to accept release for the sake of a better resurrection. If you want to find that, you have to look in the Catholic Old Testament—in the deuterocanonical books Martin Luther cut out of his Bible.

The story is found in 2 Maccabees 7, where we read that during the Maccabean persecution, "It happened also that seven brothers and their mother were arrested and were being compelled by the king, under torture with whips and cords, to partake of unlawful swine's flesh. . . . But the brothers and their mother encouraged one another to die nobly, saying, 'The Lord God is watching over us and in truth has compassion on us . . . ' After the first brother had died . . . they brought forward the second for their sport. . . . he in turn underwent tortures as the first brother had done. And when he was at his last breath, he said, 'You accursed wretch, you dismiss us from this present life, but the King of the universe will raise us up to an everlasting renewal of life'" (2 Macc. 7:1, 5-9).

One by one the sons die, proclaiming that they will be vindicated in the resurrection.

"The mother was especially admirable and worthy of honorable memory. Though she saw her seven sons perish within a single day, she bore it with good courage because of her hope in the Lord. She encouraged each of them . . . [saying], 'I do not know how you came into being in my womb. It was not I who gave you life and breath, nor I who set in order the elements within each of you. Therefore the Creator of the world, who shaped the beginning of man and devised the origin of all things, will in his mercy give life and breath back to you again, since you now forget yourselves for the sake of his laws,'" telling the last one, "Do not fear this butcher, but prove worthy of your brothers. Accept death, so that in God's mercy I may get you back again with your brothers" (2 Macc. 7:20-23, 29). This is but one example of the New Testaments' references to the deuterocanonicals.

The early Christians were thus fully justified in recognizing these books as Scripture, for the apostles not only set them in their hands as part of the Bible they used to evangelize the world, but also referred to them in the New Testament itself, citing the things they record as examples to be emulated.

The Fathers Speak

The early acceptance of the deuterocanonicals was carried down through Church history. The Protestant patristics scholar J. N. D. Kelly writes: "It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive than the [Protestant Old Testament] . . . It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called Apocrypha or deuterocanonical books. The reason for this is that the Old Testament which passed in the first instance into the hands of Christians was . . . the Greek translation known as the Septuagint. . . . most of the Scriptural quotations found in the New Testament are based upon it rather than the Hebrew.. . . In the first two centuries . . . the Church seems to have accept all, or most of, these additional books as inspired and to have treated them without question as Scripture.

Quotations from Wisdom, for example, occur in 1 Clement and Barnabas. . . Polycarp cites Tobit, and the Didache [cites] Ecclesiasticus. Irenaeus refers to Wisdom, the History of Susannah, Bel and the Dragon [i.e., the deuterocanonical portions of Daniel], and Baruch. The use made of the Apocrypha by Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyprian and Clement of Alexandria is too frequent for detailed references to be necessary" (Early Christian Doctrines, 53-54).

The recognition of the deuterocanonicals as part of the Bible that was given by individual Fathers was also given by the Fathers as a whole, when they met in Church councils. The results of councils are especially useful because they do not represent the views of only one person, but what was accepted by the Church leaders of whole regions.

The canon of Scripture, Old and New Testament, was finally settled at the Council of Rome in 382, under the authority of Pope Damasus I. It was soon reaffirmed on numerous occasions. The same canon was affirmed at the Council of Hippo in 393 and at the Council of Carthage in 397. In 405 Pope Innocent I reaffirmed the canon in a letter to Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse. Another council at Carthage, this one in the year 419, reaffirmed the canon of its predecessors and asked Pope Boniface to "confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church." All of these canons were identical to the modern Catholic Bible, and all of them included the deuterocanonicals.

This exact same canon was implicitly affirmed at the seventh ecumenical council, II Nicaea (787), which approved the results of the 419 Council of Carthage, and explicitly reaffirmed at the ecumenical councils of Florence (1442), Trent (1546), Vatican I (1870), and Vatican II (1965).

[mannyamador]

DEFENDING THE DEUTEROCANONICALS (Part 2)
James Akin
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/DEUTEROS.HTM

The Reformation Attack on the Bible

The deuterocanonicals teach Catholic doctrine, and for this reason they were taken out of the Old Testament by Martin Luther and placed in an appendix without page numbers. Luther also took out four New Testament books—Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation—and put them in an appendix without page numbers as well. These were later put back into the New Testament by other Protestants, but the seven books of the Old Testament were left out. Following Luther they had been left in an appendix to the Old Testament, and eventually the appendix itself was dropped (in 1827 by the British and Foreign Bible Society), which is why these books are not found at all in most contemporary Protestant Bibles, though they were appendicized in classic Protestant translations such as the King James Version.

The reason they were dropped is that they teach Catholic doctrines that the Protestant Reformers chose to reject. Earlier we cited an example where the book of Hebrews holds up to us an Old Testament example from 2 Maccabees 7, an incident not to be found anywhere in the Protestant Bible, but easily discoverable in the Catholic Bible. Why would Martin Luther cut out this book when it is so clearly held up as an example to us by the New Testament? Simple: A few chapters later it endorses the practice of praying for the dead so that they may be freed from the consequences of their sins (2 Macc. 12:41-45); in other words, the Catholic doctrine of purgatory. Since Luther chose to reject the historic Christian teaching of purgatory (which dates from before the time of Christ, as 2 Maccabees shows), he had to remove that book from the Bible and appendicize it. (Notice that he also removed Hebrews, the book which cites 2 Maccabees, to an appendix as well.)

To justify this rejection of books that had been in the Bible since before the days of the apostles (for the Septuagint was written before the apostles), the early Protestants cited as their chief reason the fact that the Jews of their day did not honor these books, going back to the council of Javneh in A.D. 90. But the Reformers were aware of only European Jews; they were unaware of African Jews, such as the Ethiopian Jews who accept the deuterocanonicals as part of their Bible. They glossed over the references to the deuterocanonicals in the New Testament, as well as its use of the Septuagint. They ignored the fact that there were multiple canons of the Jewish Scriptures circulating in first century, appealing to a post-Christian Jewish council which has no authority over Christians as evidence that "The Jews don't except these books." In short, they went to enormous lengths to rationalize their rejection of these books of the Bible.

Rewriting Church History

In later years they even began to propagate the myth that the Catholic Church "added" these seven books to the Bible at the Council of Trent! Protestants also try to distort the patristic evidence in favor of the deuterocanonicals. Some flatly state that the early Church Fathers did not accept them, while others make the more moderate claim that certain important Fathers, such as Jerome, did not accept them.

It is true that Jerome, and a few other isolated writers, did not accept most of the deuterocanonicals as Scripture. However, Jerome was persuaded, against his original inclination, to include the deuterocanonicals in his Vulgate edition of the Scriptures—testimony to the fact that the books were commonly accepted and were expected to be included in any edition of the Scriptures.

Furthermore, it can be documented that in his later years Jerome did accept certain deuterocanonical parts of the Bible. In his reply to Rufinus, he stoutly defended the deuterocanonical portions of Daniel even though the Jews of his day did not.

He wrote, "What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susanna, the Son of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. For I was not relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they [the Jews] are wont to make against us" (Against Rufinus 11:33 [A.D. 402]). Thus Jerome acknowledged the principle by which the canon was settled—the judgment of the Church, not of later Jews.

Other writers Protestants cite as objecting to the deuterocanonicals, such as Athanasius and Origin, also accepted some or all of them as canonical. For example, Athanasius, accepted the book of Baruch as part of his Old Testament (Festal Letter 39), and Origin accepted all of the deuterocanonicals, he simply recommended not using them in disputations with Jews.

However, despite the misgivings and hesitancies of a few individual writers such as Jerome, the Church remained firm in its historic affirmation of the deuterocanonicals as Scripture handed down from the apostles. Protestant patristics scholar J. N. D. Kelly remarks that in spite of Jerome's doubt, "For the great majority, however, the deutero-canonical writings ranked as Scripture in the fullest sense. Augustine, for example, whose influence in the West was decisive, made no distinction between them and the rest of the Old Testament . . . The same inclusive attitude to the Apocrypha was authoritatively displayed at the synods of Hippo and Carthage in 393 and 397 respectively, and also in the famous letter which Pope Innocent I dispatched to Exuperius, bishop of Toulouse, in 405" (Early Christian Doctrines, 55-56).

It is thus a complete myth that, as Protestants often charge, the Catholic Church "added" the deuterocanonicals to the Bible at the Council of Trent. These books had been in the Bible from before the time canon was initially settled in the 380s. All the Council of Trent did was reaffirm, in the face of the new Protestant attack on Scripture, what had been the historic Bible of the Church—the standard edition of which was Jerome's own Vulgate, including the seven deuterocanonicals!

The New Testament Deuteros

It is ironic that Protestants reject the inclusion of the deuterocanonicals at councils such as Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), because these are the very same early Church councils that Protestants appeal to for the canon of the New Testament. Prior to the councils of the late 300s, there was a wide range of disagreement over exactly what books belonged in the New Testament.

Certain books, such as the gospels, acts, and most of the epistles of Paul had long been agreed upon. However a number of the books of the New Testament, most notably Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, and Revelation remained hotly disputed until the canon was settled. They are, in effect, "New Testament deuterocanonicals."

While Protestants are willing to accept the testimony of Hippo and Carthage (the councils they most commonly cite) for the canonicity of the New Testament deuterocanonicals, they are unwilling to accept the testimony of Hippo and Carthage for the canonicity of the Old Testament deuterocanonicals. Ironic indeed!

[pokoman]

Commandments of Men.

"Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men" (Mark 7:7). "Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye" (Mark 7:13).

The Roman Church proclaims to the world that she has always taught and is teaching today the same Gospel that Jesus and His Apostles taught. But her doctrines and commandments are ritual inventions of monks, priests, and popes, not to be found in the Bible. There is no grace of God or saving power in them. Two of the earliest inventions are the trinity of three god-persons and the daily mass to replace the annual observance of the Lord's Passover. The plurality of the godhead was borrowed from Plato's philosophy and the ritual of the mass was copied from pagan temple rituals. Neither the trinity doctrine or the ritual of the mass can be found in the New Testament.

Prayers to save dead sinners and making the sign of the cross, both came into existence about 300 AD.

The baptism into the trinity did not come from Christ or the Apostles. This baptism was invented by gnostics and made Catholic law at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. Jerome was hired to translated the Bible into Latin around 400 AD, and made over 5,000 changes to the Scriptures to make the Catholic Bible agree with new trinitarian creeds passed into Church law at the Councils of Nicaea and Constantinople.

About 600 AD, Gregory I established worship in the unknown tongue, or in Latin. The Bible was locked up forcing people to accept religious mysteries.

The worship of Mary and saints began about 600 AD. The Bible teaches all our prayers should be addressed to God. Prayers were never offered to Mary, other Saints, or the Apostles, by first century Jewish Christians.

The worship of the crucifix, of images, and of relics, was established about 788 AD. It is impossible to find Christian idols, images, or sacred icons in the New Testament record anywhere. These practices were clearly of pagan origin.

It was about 998 AD that the 40 days of Lent before Easter was imposed by Rome. Lent, Easter, and fasting on Good Friday, are fabrications of Rome, not teachings of the Apostles.

Roman Catholic monks introduced the phony use of holy water about 1,OOO AD. This so-called holy water was borrowed from the Old Testament red heifer holy water ritual. It makes people believe they are blessed when they are not even saved.

Pope Gregory VII made the law against marriages of the priest around 1079 AD, turning many priest into homosexuals and midnight clients of brothels. The Bible teaches that marriage is essential of all New Testament Ministers: "A bishop (minister) must be blameless, the husband of one wife" [ITim. 3:2]. The Apostle Paul called the forced idea of a celibate ministry, the "doctrine of devils." Why would the papacy adopt a practice the Scriptures condemn as being of the devil? "Forbidding to marry and commanding to abstain from meats" [1Timothy 4:3].

Prayer Beads were invented by Peter the Hermit (a cabalist mystic monk) around 1090 AD. This pagan necklace is used for counting and saying prayers, but the Bible does not speak of them anywhere. Confession of sins in a confession booth to an alcoholic or homosexual priest who claims to have the power to forgive, was instituted by Pope Innocent III, at the Council of Lateran in 1215 AD.

The sacrifice of the mass was borrowed from Babylonian, Egyptian, Greek, Jewish-Baal, and Roman pagan temples, and has been in existence since around 325 AD. The Bible teaches us that the sacrifice of Christ was offered once for all. No one can turn bread and wine into the actual flesh and blood of Jesus. The mass as a Church service is a great fraud that can not be traced to the original Christian Church. The mass places all who believe in them in mental bondage to traditions of men. This ritual was proclaimed truth by Pope Innocent III, in 1215 AD.

About 1190 AD, the Roman Catholic Church began the sale of indulgences. An indulgence is payment of money to the Church for forgiveness of sins a person has or might commit. The Bible says: "Ye are not redeemed with corruptible things as silver and gold [money], but with the precious blood of Christ" [I Peter 1:18].

The Catholic Church uses a wafer in the Lord's Supper, instead of unleavened bread as Christ served his Apostles. In 325 AD, the Catholic Church abolished the true Christian Passover, which Christ instituted to replaced old Jewish customs. In 1220 AD, Pope Honorious III invented the worship of the Communion wafer calling it the "Host or Good God." Thus the Roman Catholic Church worships as God a piece of bread made by the hands of men [Man making God?]. The adoration of such a god is entirely contrary to the Bible. "The Lord of Heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples [bread or a structure], made with hands, neither is worshipped with men's hands" [Acts 17:24].

Since the year 1414 AD, the Catholic Church has refused to allow Church members to partake of the cup of wine during the Communion Service. All the communicates are allowed is the wafer god placed upon their tongues. This practice is not Biblical. The true Institution of Christ, was changed by the Council of Constance in 1414 AD. The Bible teaches that the Lord's Supper should be given with bread and wine to everyone who is a saved believer.

The doctrine of purgatory was proclaimed an article of faith around 1438 AD, at the Council of Florence. The Bible does not contain a single word concerning purgatory out of which escape is impossible except a relative pay extortion money for a special mass, burn candles for a correct amount of time, and pays the Church the right ransom by way of monetary gifts. The doctrine of Purgatory offers the Roman Church a means of extortion without it being recognized a crime. It is another lying trick to enslave good people. It is one of the most gigantic and stupendous frauds ever perpetuated on any religious believing people in the world.

These Roman Catholic errors and heresies were placed on the same level as the Holy Scriptures by the Council of Trent in 1545 AD, which ordered that Catholics henceforth accept Church traditions as being of equal authority with the Holy Scriptures. These traditions are teachings of men, some of which were not only sexual perverts, they participated in the murder and holocaust of millions, destroying entire cities of non-Catholics including Jews. Foxes' Book of martyrs gives examples of centuries of Catholic hate and genocide.

The Apocryphal books are Jewish folklore not quoted once by Christ or the Apostles, because they were not considered God-sent, but written during the Jewish dark ages, 606 BC to 27 AD. These fables [1Tim. 1:14], were added to the Bible by the Catholic Church at the Council of Trent, in 1554 AD. It was not until the Council of Trent, that the Catholic Church accepted and approved the book of Revelation to be included in the Bible. Previously they believed it had all been totally fulfilled by the end of the year in 70 AD and was useless. The doctrine of amillennialism, or no 1,000 year literal reign upon the earth by Christ is another false doctrine of a mystic monk named St. Augustine that began around 400 AD.

It was about 1854 AD that the Roman Church invented the "Immaculate Conception" doctrine, that Mary was born without sin in her blood, so she could birth a son with pure blood, free from inherited sin. But the Bible speaks nothing about inherited sin in the blood of Jesus, infants, or anyone else.

The infallibility of the Pope [impossible to sin or make an error], is a new Creed which was invented in the year 1870 AD, to give the Pope unlimited authority over the minds of all free people. If the Pope says something, all the world is now to accept that God ordered the Pope to say it! Before the year 1810 this trick did not exist.

Christ is the Head of the Church and ALONE has the power to save and damn. The keys given to Peter in Matthew 16:19, are found in Acts 2:38: 1.) Repentance; 2.) Water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and; 3.) Receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. Acts 2:38 fulfills Matthew 28:19, Mark 16:16, Luke 24:49, and John 3:3-5. What was established by Christ and the Apostles was not to be altered, reinterpreted, mixed with philosophy, merged with gnosticism, or joined to paganism. The Christian Church was to remain unchanged in the doctrine and teachings of Jesus [Matt. 16:18; Rom. 16:17; 1Tim. 4:16]. Catholic monks, priests, philosophers, & Popes have added, changed, and modified Christian practices until Catholicism and Protestantism do not resemble the New Testament Church in the Bible. "To the Law (Old Testament as a schoolmaster) and to the testimony (New Testament as the only guide for faith and practice), if they speak not according to this, it is because there is no light (Jesus) in them" [Isaiah 8:20].

The doctrine of "Limbo" a temporary hell where babies agonize in hell fire, kept prisoner in a room next to other screaming souls in the fires of purgatory, is another Catholic extortion fraud. What parent would want to let their child squirm in hell's torments, and not desire to pay the Church extortion money if this will guarantee their baby will be released to go directly to heaven? Limbo is a papacy fraud and not found in the true Bible anywhere. Jesus said concerning little children: "Of such is the Kingdom of Heaven [Matthew 19:14]." Since children do not inherit the sins of ancestors in their blood, they are considered holy and sanctified by the salvation of one of their parents, until they reach the age of accountability, which is known only to God [1Cor. 7:14]. Infant baptism: There is no scripture for sprinkling holy water on an infant's head for baptism anywhere in the Bible. These customs of the papacy are to brainwash Church members into believing sin is inherited in the blood of a baby. This one doctrine opens a pandora's box of other theories and false doctrines, even among Protestant denominations. Limbo was an invention in the 13th century by Pope Gregory.

MORE HERESIES
Adoption of the Plato theory of a plurality of gods (persons) in deity; Amillennialism; faith in works, dogmas, and traditions of the Church for salvation; Holy candles; Holy palm leaves; Holy salt; Holy ash dots on the forehead (Ash Wednesday); Holy smoke; Holy rags; Holy hoods; Holy robes; Holy beads; Holy skulls; Holy bones; Holy splinters of the Cross; Holy sinful monks; Holy Crusades; Holy killing of non-Catholics and Jews; Holy Jesuit murderers of non-Catholics; Holy Christmas trees; Holy Easter rabbits; Holy Easter eggs; Holy toilet paper; Holy bachelors [he virgins]; Holy Nuns, unmarried "Virgins" [few are]; Holy mother Superiors; Holy Sisters [many who have had babies]; Holy whiskey; Holy gambling (lottery & bingo); Holy Catholic Freemasons; Holy Knights of Columbus; Holy blood oaths to kill Protestants (Jesuits); Holy beer; Holy St. Bernard rum dogs; Holy Benedictine rum made in Holy monasteries by Holy monks for Holy nuns and Holy priests; Holy goats; Holy cows; Holy Lent; Holy Week; Holy Good Friday; Holy Palm Sunday; Holy Patrick's day; Holy all souls day; Holy all saints day; Holy Fish Fridays; Holy Saint Ann's day (God's Grandmother); Holy Columbus day; Holy Candlemas day; Holy Mary's month; Holy new year's eve communion service; read Jude 1:1-25.

Jesus and His Apostles never taught any of the above religious falsehoods. They should be rejected by every true Christian.

To learn what the Church really was read the book of Acts and then follow-up by reading the letters to the Churches about faith, practice, worship, and Church doctrines. Do not follow religion blindly. Find out when a particular practice or belief was started and why. The New Testament is our *ONLY* guide even as the Old Testament was the exclusive guide to those before Calvary. If a tradition is not Bible based and can not be found there, do not observe it, it is a tradition and commandment of man.

[Cardinal Bunal]

That's just YOUR interpretation, but what makes it any more authoritative than any other? Or, for that matter, how is your perosnal interpretation more authoritative than the interpretation of the Church that put together the Bible in the first place? IT ISN'T.

See, everytime I come close to TRUTH you just dismiss me as a whack job who has some "inner witness" because I know that what I posted there convicts you and the man-made doctrinals of the Roman church ;b

So do you admit then that the Bible is NOT the sole rule of faith? A simple yes or no will be sufficient. Try not to obfuscate again

No. See it is ENOUGH for knowledge in salvation. And anything that threatens to undermine the message of salvation can easily be rebuked by the Documents.

No, there was no authoritative canon established until the Catholic Church established it. The Councils were the first authoritative bodies to determine the canon. NO AUTHORITATIVE CANON EXISTED BEFORE THIS. If you dispute this, then show me an authoritative canon.

You CAN'T, right? I thought so.

No they didn't, they just re-affirmed it.... Even before the 1st hundred years of Christianity, there were lying scribes, teachers and prominent theologians who would have thought out of delusion what they wrote was "Written Word". Such as Ignatius's private interpretations of the Lord's Supper and has since then turned it into a horrible sacrilege of idolatry. The Philadelphians opposed him, that unless they find in the Documents what he was teaching, they will NOT believe in what is being preached. 1Of course, it was no less than their obedience to the admonitions of Paul NOT to go beyond what is written (1 Cor. 4: 6 ) and the Lord Jesus Christ commends them for that 2

1. The Letter of Ignatius to the Philadelphians
2. Revelation 3: 8

The early Church did not have the New Testament as we know it. Rather, individuals and local congregations had portions of it. They would have one or more of the Gospels, some of the letters which Apostles had written, and perhaps the Book of Acts or the Book of Revelation.

Why weren't all of these books collected in one place? Look at what the books themselves say. Individual apostles wrote them for specific audiences. For example, the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts were written for Theophilus. (Luke 1:3; Acts 1:1) Most of the Epistles were written to specific churches or to specific individuals. (Romans 1:7; 1 Corinthians 1:2; 2 Corinthians 1:1; Galatians 1:2; Ephesians 1:1; Philippians 1:1; Colossians 1:2; 1 Thessalonians 1:1; 2 Thessalonians 1:1; 1 Timothy 1:2; 2 Timothy 1:2; Titus 1:4; Philemon 1:1; 3 John 1:1)

The early Christians expected that Jesus would return for His Church at any moment. As a result, they didn't see the need for long-term planning for future generations. Furthermore, Christians were persecuted by the Romans. When your life is in constant danger, it is difficult to collect writings which are scattered all over the Roman Empire. So it took time to collect all of these writings, decide which ones were authoritative Scripture, and make complete sets of them.

By the time of Origen (185-254 A.D.), there was general agreement about most of the New Testament. However, there was disagreement as to whether the following six epistles should be part of the New Testament canon: Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, and Jude. This was sixty years before the conversion of Emperor Constantine. 1

The canon of the New Testament was not formed by the decision of any Church council. Rather, the Council of Carthage (397 A.D.) listed as canonical "only those books that were generally regarded by the consensus of use as properly a canon". 2 In other words, it didn't create the canon. Rather, it confirmed the identity of the canon which already existed.

So the Catholic Church did not give us the Bible. However, Catholic monks helped preserve the Bible by copying it.

1. William Webster, "The Church of Rome at the Bar of History" (Carlisle, Pennsylvania: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1995), page 8.

2. Walter A. Elwell (editor), "Evangelical Dictionary of Theology" (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1984), page 141.

[mannyamador]

See, everytime I come close to TRUTH you just dismiss me as a whack job who has some "inner witness

That's because you have consistently FAILED to provide even a shred of evidence to back up your wacky claims! And you haven't been able to give even one halfway decent reason why anyone should accept your PERSONAL INTERPRETATIONS as authoritative. Not one.

>> So do you admit then that the Bible is NOT the sole rule of faith? A simple yes or
>> no will be sufficient. Try not to obfuscate again

No. See it is ENOUGH for knowledge in salvation. And anything that threatens to undermine the message of salvation can easily be rebuked by the Documents.

In other words, you've just affirmed that the rest of the Bible is UNNECESSARY for salvation! Foot in mouth disease detected!

You just put yourself in a trap. If you claim that just that part of the Bible is sufficient, then the rest of the Biblke is superfluous. But if you claim the rest of the Bible is needed, then the claim of the Church that the Bible doesn't contain all the truths ABOUT salvation is just as valid.

You are also simply assuming that the so-called "Documents" are authentic. But how do you KNOW which books are supposed to be in it? There is no canon listed anywhere in the Bible. So how do you know what should be in it? Obviously, some OTHER AUTHORITY must have established the canon. And it was the Catholic Church that did so. I challenge you to show me any AUTHORITATIVE body that determined the canon other than the Catholic Church. So far you have failed to do so. This failure sinks your absurd claim below:

The canon of the New Testament was not formed by the decision of any Church council. Rather, the Council of Carthage (397 A.D.) listed as canonical "only those books that were generally regarded by the consensus of use as properly a canon". 2 In other words, it didn't create the canon. Rather, it confirmed the identity of the canon which already existed.

Wrong interpretation again. THERE WAS NO COMPLETE CANON IN EXISTENCE before the Church defined it. As your own post states, there wasn;t complete ageement about either the New or Old Testament canon! In other words, NO CANON HAD BEEN ESTABLISHED until the Church did it. So then it was ONLY the Church that authoritatviely defined it. You just shot yourself in the foot again!

So, I challenge you yet again: show me a complete authoritative canon pre-dating the Church Councils.

Still can't come up with any, huh? I've waited long enough. Your irrational arguments are just plain looney.