User Profile: by faith

by faith

Member Since: September 27, 2011

Comments

123 To page: Go
  • [1] July 23, 2014 at 6:24pm

    http://www.catholic.com/tracts/bible-translations-guide

    Responses (1) +
  • [2] July 23, 2014 at 5:42pm

    Luther removed eleven books from the canon of the Bible
    Seven books and parts of Esther and Daniel from the OT
    and four from the NT — because he couldn’t make them conform to his new doctrines.

    He especially hated 2 Maccabees because it contains evidence of the purification of souls after death. The NT books were Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation. The NT books were restored by his followers in the 17th century, but they let his cuts to the OT stand.

    Luther was a very troubled soul who changed the Bible to fit newly man-made tradition.

  • [1] July 23, 2014 at 5:40pm

    Polish

    Interesting addendum. Although Luther may have united all of Germany under a single language. The point of my post was that Luther modified his Bible translation to fit his newly invented Sola Fide doctrine.

    Luther also (among other things) approved the bigamous marriage of Philip of Hesse — and when the new bride’s mother exposed him, he lied about it, then finally had to admit it. He said he would rather a man have two wives than one divorce.
    He also approved polygamy. He said he could find nothing in Scripture to oppose it.

    Most Protestants know nothing of the real Luther. They only know the white-washed Luther they were taught. They show him as the brave hero fighting the big bad Catholic Church, and never mention any of his changes to the Bible or his bizarre behavior.

    His feces fights with the devil are for real — documented history.

    The man was mentally disturbed. He was a victim of a savage mother and father who beat him mercilessly as a child. He never recovered. He suffered from “scrupulosity” — he imagined everything he did was a sin.

    That’s why he was so relieved when he “discovered” Sola Fide (Faith Alone) “while he was sitting on the privy in the monastery tower”. (Those are his own words) He had only to believe, he said, and that relieved his tortured conscience.

    Responses (1) +
  • [2] July 23, 2014 at 4:07pm

    Many will point to the King James at this time as the summit and source of the authentic Bible. Well that brings up 2 questions. Why would Jesus establish a church that was to be “Bible Only” and wait over 1,500 years to provide the Bible part? And two, who was King James and by what authority did he get to publish the Bible? By the way the KJV has been re-written several times over the last 400 years.

    So that brings us to our current time period. This is when the notion of a “Bible Only” church really began to take off. That is why we have 35,000+ Christian denominations and Non-denominations who all claim to read the same Bible yet all disagree with one another over the interpretation. That’s an average of 5 new churches every day, allowing for those that fade away due to any number of reasons.

    Is that the “Bible Only” church you are referring to?

  • [1] July 23, 2014 at 4:06pm

    Let’s jump ahead a few years. AD 401 – 1500. This is the time between the authentication on the books of the Bible and the movable type printing press. There were copies of the Bible at this time; however the process was very slow. It took a monk more than 2 years to hand copy each Bible. The cost for this hand written copy was approximately 3 years wages. Combine that with the fact that 90% of the population was illiterate and you once again are forced to come to the conclusion that a “Bible Only” church would not have been possible at this time.
    How about AD 1501-to 1900. Could we have a “Bible Only” church at this time? Finally, it is conceivable to even make the argument. But, we have problems. Which Bible? Are we to stick with the Catholic Bible which has been used for a century and a half, or are we to use the re-writes? Early on in this time frame we have many “versions” of the Bible being printed. Luther and others removed books that did not support his newly invented sola scriptura and sola fide. 11 Books were either edited or completely removed. Then you have groups like Watch Tower who re-write the re-writes and the LDS who come up with a completely new book.

  • [1] July 23, 2014 at 4:05pm

    We know this for sure: The Holy Spirit cannot be the author of this confusion (1 Cor. 14:33). God cannot lead people to contradictory beliefs because his truth is one. The conclusion? The “Bible alone” theory must be false.

    When did these Bible only churches begin?

    First off, nowhere does the Bible make the claim that it alone is the source and summit of all salvation. Nor does it ever claim to be to only path to Jesus and then there is John 21:25. I hear your response already, please re-read 2 Timothy 3:16…when this was written, the New Testament had not yet been written much less complied and accepted as canon. With that being said, the New Testament has several references to the “church” being the arbiter of disputes where it comes to the faith.

    Anyway, could this “Bible Only” church have existed in the first century (AD 0-100)?
    Since most of the books had not been written until the latter half of the first century, we’ll have to go with no.

    How about the 2nd, 3rd or 4th centuries (AD 101-400)? The books were written, but so were dozens of other books too. The Church, which we’ve already established predates the Bible, had not yet declared which books made up the NT. And just as important, which did not. Once again no “Bible Only” churches during this time frame.

  • [1] July 23, 2014 at 4:05pm

    Revelation 22:18-19?

    You do know a wise man will read the Bible in context? As to not misinterpret the message?

    “I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book,…”
    Which book is John referring to?
    The Bible does not exist for another 300 years, so he is obviously talking about “The Book of Revelations”

    Some Christians claim, “The Bible is all I need,” but this notion is not taught in the Bible itself. In fact, the Bible teaches the contrary idea (2 Pet. 1:20–21, 3:15–16). The “Bible alone” theory was not believed by anyone in the early Church.

    It’s new, having arisen only in the 1500s during the Protestant Reformation.
    The theory is a “tradition of men” that nullifies the Word of God, distorts the true role of the Bible, and undermines the authority of the Church Jesus established (Mark 7:1–8).

    Although popular with many “Bible Christian” churches, the “Bible alone” theory simply does not work in practice. Historical experience disproves it.

    Each year we see additional splintering among “Bible-believing” religions.
    Today there are tens of thousands of competing denominations, each insisting its interpretation of the Bible is the correct one. The resulting divisions have caused untold confusion among millions of sincere but misled Christians.
    Just open up your telephone book and see how many different denominations are listed, each claiming to go by the “Bible alone,” but no two of them agreeing on

  • [4] July 23, 2014 at 10:51am

    A.D. 1833 – Noah Webster, after publishing his famous dictionary, releases his own revised edition of the King James Bible.

    A.D. 1881-1885 – The King James Bible is revised and published as the Revised Version (RV) in England.

    Unknown to most Protestants, the original 1611 King James Bible and the Bibles published for the use of the clergy and the church members until late in the 19th Century, contained 80 books. “Apocrapha” included, removed by the Archbishop of Canterbury in 1885

    Let’s not forget “the wicked bible”
    The Wicked Bible, sometimes called Adulterous Bible or Sinners’ Bible, is a term referring to the Bible published in 1631 by Robert Barker and Martin Lucas, the royal printers in London, which was meant to be a reprint of the King James Bible.

    The name is derived from a mistake made by the compositors: in the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:14), the word not in the sentence “Thou shalt not commit adultery” was omitted, thus changing the sentence into “Thou shalt commit adultery”.
    Those “Bibles” were burned, only 8 survived

    Those Bible burning Protestants, LOL

  • [4] July 23, 2014 at 10:46am

    AD 1536 In his translation of the Bible from Greek into German, Luther removed 4 N.T. books (Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation) and placed them in an appendix saying they were less than canonical.
    AD 1546 At the Council of Trent, the Catholic Church reaffirmed once and for all the full list of 27 books.
    A.D. 1381-1382 – John Wycliffe and associates believing that people should be permitted to read the Bible in their own language begin to translate and produce the first handwritten manuscripts of the entire Bible in English. These include the 39 Old Testament books, 27 New Testament books, and 14 Apocrypha books. (That’s 80 books)
    A.D. 1455 – After the invention of the printing press in Germany, Johannes Gutenberg produces the first printed Bible, the Gutenberg Bible, in the Latin Vulgate.

    A.D. 1516 – Desiderius Erasmus produces a Greek New Testament, forerunner to the Textus Receptus.
    A.D. 1522 – Martin Luther translates and publishes the New Testament for the first time into German from the 1516 Erasmus version.
    A.D. 1582 – Dropping its 1,000-year-old Latin only policy, the Church of Rome produces the first English Catholic Bible, the Rheims New Testament, from the Latin Vulgate

    A.D. 1611 – The King James Version, also called the “Authorized Version” of the Bible is published. It is said to be the most printed book in the history of the world, with more than one billion copies in print.

  • [4] July 23, 2014 at 10:43am

    AD 51-125 – The New Testament books are written.
    AD 140 Marcion, a businessman in Rome, taught that there were two Gods: Yahweh, the cruel God of the Old Testament, and Abba, the kind father of the New Testament. Marcion eliminated the Old Testament as scriptures and, since he was anti-Semitic, kept from the New Testament only 10 letters of Paul and 2/3 of Luke’s gospel (he deleted references to Jesus’s Jewishness). Marcion’s “New Testament”, the first to be compiled, forced the mainstream Church to decide on a core canon: the four Gospels and Letters of Paul. AD 367 The earliest extant list of the books of the NT, in exactly the number and order in which we presently have them, is written by Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, in his Festal letter # 39.
    AD 382 Council of Rome (whereby Pope Damasus started the ball rolling for the defining of a universal canon for all city-churches). Listed the New Testament books in their present number and order.
    AD 393 the Council of Hippo, which began “arguing it out.” Canon proposed by Bishop Athanasius.
    AD 397 The Council of Carthage, which refined the canon for the Western Church, sending it back to Pope Innocent for ratification. In the East, the canonical process was hampered by a number of schisms (esp. within the Church of Antioch).
    AD 787 The Ecumenical Council of Nicaea II, adopted the canon of Carthage.
    AD 1442 At the Council of Florence, the entire Church recognized the 27 books

    Responses (5) +
  • [3] July 23, 2014 at 9:31am

    In America, we have free speech, but only if it doesn’t have any potential of offending anyone anywhere.

    This is what we’ve become
    Those who cry out for tolerance are in fact the most intolerant

  • [13] July 23, 2014 at 9:26am

    Stay our of my bedroom – unless it helps me get a job
    Stay our of my bedroom – unless I can get free birth control
    Stay our of my bedroom – unless I can force social change

    Stay our of my bedroom – unless I can use it against you

    Responses (1) +
  • [1] July 18, 2014 at 12:01pm

    Reality check: Hobby Lobby provides 16 different forms of contraception to its employees without a copay.

    Always has Period. Further, Hobby Lobby voluntarily pays employees double the minimum wage. The company isn’t taking a single dime out of the paychecks of women for birth control.

    Women taking care of themselves and paying for their own things, including contraception, is empowering and a woman being responsible for herself isn’t discrimination as the Democratic victim machine wants women to believe.

  • [1] July 18, 2014 at 11:30am

    Protestant views on birth control are markedly more pluralistic than the views expressed by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

    However, ALL Christian religions condemned birth control as a violation of God’s procreative purpose for marriage…until 1930.

    In 1930, at the Seventh Lambeth Conference, the Anglican Communion, after years of considerable internal debate, issued the first statement permitting birth control “when there is a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood and where there is a morally sound reason for avoiding complete abstinence.”

    It took a little over 40 years to get to abortion on demand.

    Acceptance of birth control steadily increased. By 2005 acceptance had increased such that a Harris Interactive poll conducted online among 2,242 U.S. adults – Birth control/contraception is supported by 93 percent of all adults, including 90 percent of Catholics and 88 percent of people who consider themselves “very religious” or born-again and, particularly, those born-again Christians who describe themselves as Evangelicals

    Contraception was legalized in the U.S. in the 1965 case, Griswold v. Connecticut.
    Because of Griswold, so the theory goes, the floodgates flew open and out flowed Roe v. Wade(1973)

    Responses (1) +
  • [1] July 18, 2014 at 11:23am

    What you’re missing Travis is Hobby Lobby agreed to provide 16 of the 20 mandated birth control options.

    They don’t want to provide the 4 that terminate the fertilized egg.

    “they did’t want their employees getting birth control” is a false statement

  • [2] July 17, 2014 at 9:14am

    WHy would you be asked to reject Satan if you never followed him?

    If a cop pulls you over and ask if you’ve been drinking, why should you have to say NO if you’ve never had a drink?

    Make a public rejection of Satan because it makes God happy

  • [3] July 16, 2014 at 6:54pm

    Augustine
    “What the universal Church holds, not as instituted [invented] by councils but as something always held, is most correctly believed to have been handed down by apostolic authority. Since others respond for children, so that the celebration of the sacrament may be complete for them, it is certainly availing to them for their consecration, because they themselves are not able to respond” (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:24:31 [A.D. 400]).
    “The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic” (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).
    “Cyprian was not issuing a new decree but was keeping to the most solid belief of the Church in order to correct some who thought that infants ought not be baptized before the eighth day after their birth. . . . He agreed with certain of his fellow bishops that a child is able to be duly baptized as soon as he is born” (Letters 166:8:23 [A.D. 412]).

    Overwhelming evidence says infants were baptized from the early days of the Church

  • [2] July 16, 2014 at 6:52pm

    Gregory of Nazianz
    “Do you have an infant child? Allow sin no opportunity; rather, let the infant be sanctified from childhood. From his most tender age let him be consecrated by the Spirit. Do you fear the seal [of baptism] because of the weakness of nature? Oh, what a pusillanimous mother and of how little faith!” (Oration on Holy Baptism 40:7 [A.D. 388]).
    “‘Well enough,’ some will say, ‘for those who ask for baptism, but what do you have to say about those who are still children, and aware neither of loss nor of grace? Shall we baptize them too?’ Certainly [I respond], if there is any pressing danger. Better that they be sanctified unaware, than that they depart unsealed and uninitiated” (ibid., 40:28)

    John Chrysostom
    “You see how many are the benefits of baptism, and some think its heavenly grace consists only in the remission of sins, but we have enumerated ten honors [it bestows]! For this reason we baptize even infants, though they are not defiled by [personal] sins, so that there may be given to them holiness, righteousness, adoption, inheritance, brotherhood with Christ, and that they may be his [Christ’s] members” (Baptismal Catecheses in Augustine, Against Julian 1:6:21 [A.D. 388]).

  • [2] July 16, 2014 at 6:50pm

    “The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit” (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248])

    Cyprian of Carthage
    “As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born” (Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253])
    “If, in the case of the worst sinners and those who formerly sinned much against God, when afterwards they believe, the remission of their sins is granted and no one is held back from baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an infant not be held back, who, having but recently been born, has done no sin, except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of that old death from his first being born. For this very reason does he [an infant] approach more easily to receive the remission of sins: because the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another”

  • [2] July 16, 2014 at 6:48pm

    “‘And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan’ [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]” (Fragment34 [A.D. 190]).

    Hippolytus
    “Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them” (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215])

    Origen
    “Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous” (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248])

123 To page: Go