I am starting this thread because I believe that the Protestants need to clarify their beliefs. As you all very well know, the protestants have attacked the Catholics for what they think the Catholics believe.
So I think it will be only fair for protestants to explain their beliefs based on what they belief.
But here's how this will run. Only ONE protestant is needed to answer the questions. I am doing this to be fair and to keep the thread clear of all insults and ridiculous statements. I have noticed that when people randomly post things the point of the thread gets diminished, and there is no outcome of the thread, and it become meaningless, and I would like this to be a very respectful thread.

So I am asking that either A_K_O or Seun moderate this thread without bias. The only ones allowed to post are myself and the Protestant who takes up the challenge, every other post should be deleted. I really want this to be very fair and just.

I will be the ONLY Catholic asking the questions.

So can the moderator agree please and can the protestant accept the challenge?

Thank you

What beef have you got with protestant beliefs? Do you care to enumerate?

Ask away.

Why is the atheist here?

Davidy I was so happy to see your post. Why is No2atheism posting, will he be the one to take on the challenge?
Can the moderator delete the posts that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic please? I don't want the thread to get derailed. Thanks.

@ David

I will take on Sola Scriptura first.

Do you believe in Sola Scriptura? If so, Why? And can you prove that it is biblical as well as logical?

~Lady~:

I will take on Sola Scriptura first.

Do you believe in Sola Scriptura? If so, Why? And can you prove that it is biblical as well as logical?

1. The idea that the bible can be understood by logic is itself false doctrine - Job 11:7 Canst thou by searching find out God? canst thou find out the Almighty unto perfection?
Neither Lazarus the begger nor Zaccheus were logical thinkers. Leave logic in the hallways of schools, christianity demands wholesome faith.

2. I firmly believe in sola scriptura because Christ declared Himself as THE WORD in John 1.
2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

What did Paul mean by "all scripture"? Did He include catechisms and papal decrees?

I'm tired out this night and mentally not ready for long answers . . . pls keep your responses short and i will endeavour to do the same. Anything longer than 1000 words and you can be sure this thread wont go beyond page 1.

1. The idea that the bible can be understood by logic is itself false doctrine - Job 11:7 Canst thou by searching find out God? canst thou find out the Almighty unto perfection?
Neither Lazarus the begger nor Zaccheus were logical thinkers. Leave logic in the hallways of schools, christianity demands wholesome faith.

The idea that faith is illogic is unbiblical and is in itself a fasle doctrine. David you established an excuse not to make sense of anything. The Bible makes sense.

2. I firmly believe in sola scriptura because Christ declared Himself as THE WORD in John 1.
2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Ok, for those who do not know what sola scriptura is, it means solely by scripture or scripture alone or that we should go by scripture alone.

Does the Bible tell us that we should go by scripture ALONE?
I am glad you cited 2 Timothy for me, while Catholics do agree with 2 Timothy, I should go ahead and say that we agree with everything written in the Bible, does that verse indicate that God does not deposit faith or expresses his Word to us without scripture, and does that verse state that we should go by Scripture ALONE?

What did Paul mean by "all scripture"? Did He include catechisms and papal decrees?

He means the book or letter of the Bible that have been defined as scripture.
At the time Paul was writing this letter, was 2 Timothy considered scripture?
Did Paul write 2 Timothy to be scripture?
In fact he very well could've included Papal decrees, don't forget that Peter the first Pope wrote letters also, and those letters would be decrees, and we know very well that there are letters written by Peter in the Bible and is defined as scripture?

P.S. Please be specific and respectful in answering my questions. I didn't start this thread for you or anyone to use as a bash anything Catholic or bash anything Protestant. It is started strictly for Protestants to answer questions. Thanks.

@ Lady

The idea that faith is illogic is unbiblical and is in itself a fasle doctrine.

I'd have to agree with you that faith isn't illogical. In fact it does require a degree of intelligence to understand what is required to trust God completely. The bible says "faith comes by hearing, and hearing the word of God."

Does the Bible tell us that we should go by scripture ALONE?

Not directly, but neither do the scriptures direct us to follow tradition. In fact Jesus Himself made that very clear when He pointed to the defective traditions of the church leaders back in His time. While I appreciate that there can be sound traditional values that have passed down from one generation to another, one must realize that Satan can influence men to introduce traditions that run contrary to God's instructions.

I am glad you cited 2 Timothy for me, while Catholics do agree with 2 Timothy, I should go ahead and say that we agree with everything written in the Bible, does that verse indicate that God does not deposit faith or expresses his Word to us without scripture, and does that verse state that we should go by Scripture ALONE?

God can express Himself outside of written scripture. He can do it through special revelation as well. When He gave the heathen king of Babylon a dream, that was one example of God operating outside of His typical revelation methods. But to be honest with you, that has never been an issue with Christians, because we are very much aware that God can do what pleases Him.

~Lady~:

I am starting this thread because I believe that the Protestants need to clarify their beliefs. As you all very well know, the protestants have attacked the Catholics for what they think the Catholics believe.
So I think it will be only fair for protestants to explain their beliefs based on what they belief.
But here's how this will run. Only ONE protestant is needed to answer the questions. I am doing this to be fair and to keep the thread clear of all insults and ridiculous statements. I have noticed that when people randomly post things the point of the thread gets diminished, and there is no outcome of the thread, and it become meaningless, and I would like this to be a very respectful thread.

So I am asking that either A_K_O or Seun moderate this thread without bias. The only ones allowed to post are myself and the Protestant who takes up the challenge, every other post should be deleted. I really want this to be very fair and just.

I will be the ONLY Catholic asking the questions.

So can the moderator agree please and can the protestant accept the challenge?

Thank you

Why do you refer to all non catholic christians as protestants  I am well aware that there at at least five other christian denomiantions that preceded the catholic faith namely: Armenian orthodox, Greek orthodox, syrian orthodox, ethopian church and coptic christians. These denominations still exist today and they never protested from the catholic, they existed side by side and most of them preceded it. It is also very erronous to continue to claim peter was the first pope. To the best of my knowledge The RCC  was established in the 4th century AD hundreds of years after the death of peter. We know for a fact that Peter was the one christ ordained to establish THE CHURCH which he did but he never established the RCC he established THE CHURCH which means the body of christ or followers of christ. I think it is mischievious for the RCC to insinuate that they were founded by Peter. The truth is that the RCC was instituitionalized and empowerd by emperor constantine a semi-pagan roman empire who used the RCC as a political tool to dominate his empire (even though i support the campaign of calaumny being made against the RCC by mostly the pentecostal movement) . It is my humble belief that all churches have derailed from the original teachings and commandments of our lord Jesus Christ, this derailment started with the RCC so in that sense they are protestants as well. The churches that broke away from the RCC did so for selfish and unscriptural reasons i.e the anglican church was founded for political reasons by the King of England. Several other divisions came up within the church based on how different people understood or chose to understand the bible (which in itself was already highly editted by the RCC) A lot of churches were founded for selfish and sometimes evil reasons. Today any idiot can wake up and start a church (mostly for financial gain) this is very common in the pentecostal movement.

To me as a christian all this talk of denomination and sects is really sickening. I beleive if we are all truly christians denomination should not matter to us we should be more focused on keeping christ's commandments which is to love each other and even non christians. Apostle paul already warned us about dividing the church they founded evidently our so called christian leaders refused to adhere to this instruction.

1 Corinthians 1:10-17:

Divisions in the Church
    10 I appeal to you, dear brothers and sisters, by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, to live in harmony with each other. Let there be no divisions in the church. Rather, be of one mind, united in thought and purpose. 11 For some members of Chloe’s household have told me about your quarrels, my dear brothers and sisters. 12 Some of you are saying, “I am a follower of Paul.” Others are saying, “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Peter,” or “I follow only Christ.”

   13[b] Has Christ been divided into factions[/b]? Was I, Paul, crucified for you? Were any of you baptized in the name of Paul? Of course not! 14 I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 for now no one can say they were baptized in my name. 16 (Oh yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas, but I don’t remember baptizing anyone else.) 17 For Christ didn’t send me to baptize, but to preach the Good News—and not with clever speech, for fear that the cross of Christ would lose its power.

I see people don't know how to follow directions. I specifically wanted to keep this thread on track and away from any distractions.

Bobbyaf, I asked you to please not post, a true christian would respect that.

@ KunleOshob you are even more Catholic than you think.

Protestants do not acknowledge the See of Peter anywhere, not just in Rome, anywhere.

The Churches you named above are the eastern orthodox church, their beliefs are still very much ours, the only problem is the Prmiacy of Rome as ultimate, they do acknowledge the Prmicay of Rome (St Peter) they only hold that each See is individual and equal with the See of Peter being the first among equals. They still acknowledge Peter as the one given the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, as the Prince of the Apostles, and as the leader of the Apostles, and as the Pope in Rome, they do not dispute that the See of Peter is in Rome. That has never been disputed by the Orthodox Churches.
They still attend the synods of Bishops under the Western Church, and are currently gradually working towards unity.
But to correct you, the Churches split from the Roman Catholic Church in 1054, before then they were still united with the Church. Their orders are valid, apostolic succession and all, and that is why we do not inculde them in the term "Protestants" they are still part of THE CHURCH by Christ. WE DO NOT DENY THAT, AND THEY DO NOT DENY THAT, WE ACKNOWLEDGE EACH OTHER IN THE CHURCH.

It is the anglicans, lutherans, clavinist, baptists, and others that came after that that are referred to as Protestants. Infact the Churches mentioned above do refer to you all as protestants.

I forgot to mention another difference, is that they do not believe Mary to be Immaculately conceived, although they do believe her to be the New Eve or the Second Eve, which doesn't make sense to me, if the Old Eve was immacultely created, how can the New Eve not be immaculately conceived. But that's besides the points, they also hold that Mary is the theotokos "Mother of God" and that above all other saints she holds a higher reverence.

So really the differences are not so big. They too defend the Church from protestants.

I do agree with you however that Jesus did found ONLY ONE CHURCH, but you fail to realise that the Church is to exist forever. I say this because of this statement you made

It is my humble belief that all churches have derailed from the original teachings and commandments of our lord Jesus Christ, this derailment started with the RCC so in that sense they are protestants as well

On the contrary, Jesus told the Church that the Holy Spirit will lead them into all truth, which means that what the Church teaches WILL be truth, that is why we have not changed a teaching for 2000 years, it's not that we don't want to which we really don't, but it is that we CANNOT change the teaching. Also Jesus promised that the gates of hell shall never prevail against his Church, if your statement is true then Christ was lying.
Were there things that were practiced by the Church that shouldn't have been practiced, absolutely, were those things doctrinal or dogma, absolutely NOT. Even if a Pope were to want to declare something, if it is against the Holy Spirit he cannot declare it, we know this because a Pope tried and failed, and everyone just waited around for his happy death.

Before the schism with the Eastern Church, the RCC was known as THE CHUCH, after the protestant reformation it became known as the Catholic Church as a common term, but it is still THE CHURCH. We are called these names to identify ourselves. The Church isn't a denomination, denominations exists because people broke away and a name was needed to identify THE CHURCH, that's all.

Apostle paul already warned us about dividing the church they founded evidently our so called christian leaders refused to adhere to this instruction.

This was exactly what Pope Julius II told Martin Luther when he decided to split from the Church. And as we all know now, he was correct. Reformations needed to happen, but Luther went about it the wrong way and he was also wrong in his doctrine. There were other reformers but they didn't change the doctrine of the Church because they knew the doctrine wasn't wrong, it was some of the leaders and their practices, and so they reformed the Church from within, still keeping the Unity that Christ wanted and the ONE Church that he founded.

By the way, it wasn't a doctrine to sell indulgences, and it was done by one man, when it got to the Pope he excommunicated the Priest that was doing so. Unfortunately the news already spread that it was a doctrine to sell indulgences.

I'd have to agree with you that faith isn't illogical. In fact it does require a degree of intelligence to understand what is required to trust God completely. The bible says "faith comes by hearing, and hearing the word of God."

thank you.

Not directly, but neither do the scriptures direct us to follow tradition

actually it does.

2 Thessalonians 2:15
Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.

Notice Paul speaks of traditions, then notice that he mentions that these people were taught the traditions orally as well as by a letter, the letters are what you read in the New Testament today, well some of them are there which proves that these letters weren't written to be scripture otherwise they would all be contained in the New Testament today. So if we have the letters today what happened to the oral tradition that he asks us to hold on to?

While I appreciate that there can be sound traditional values that have passed down from one generation to another, one must realize that Satan can influence men to introduce traditions that run contrary to God's instructions

And that is why you stay in the Church whose doctrine can NEVER be influenced by the devil. The Church that Christ found, the Catholic Church, the Universal Church. THE ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC, AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH. The Church which he said the gates of hell shall never prevail against and that the Holy Spirit will lead to all truth.

God can express Himself outside of written scripture. He can do it through special revelation as well. When He gave the heathen king of Babylon a dream, that was one example of God operating outside of His typical revelation methods. But to be honest with you, that has never been an issue with Christians, because we are very much aware that God can do what pleases Him

So you don't believe in Sola Scriptura.

Another example is Jesus teaching the apostles and the apostles teaching the early christians.

~Lady~:

The idea that faith is illogic is unbiblical and is in itself a fasle doctrine. David you established an excuse not to make sense of anything. The Bible makes sense.

If it "made sense" all scientists, philosophers and nobel laureates would be christians today. Did the phrase "eat my flesh and drink my blood" in John 6 make sense to the disciples? Paul was a "learned man" but he had thought Christ was a heretic until his journey to Damascus, Peter was a mere fisherman, an illiterate and yet he understood the gospel well enough to give his earthshaking speech on the day of pentecost. Faith cannot be obtained by logical reasoning . . . the bible says that much.

You need the Holy Spirit first.

~Lady~:

Does the Bible tell us that we should go by scripture ALONE?

pray tell, what does the bible tell you to take along with scripture? history? Provide bible verses to support this pls. Remember Joshua's command to the jews . . . this book of the law (the books of Moses) shall not depart out of thy mouth . . .

~Lady~:

In fact he very well could've included Papal decrees, don't forget that Peter the first Pope wrote letters also, and those letters would be decrees, and we know very well that there are letters written by Peter in the Bible and is defined as scripture?

We already know Peter was no pope, you cant prove that Peter was ever in Rome and whether he had any significant influence there.

~Lady~:

P.S. Please be specific and respectful in answering my questions. I didn't start this thread for you or anyone to use as a bash anything Catholic or bash anything Protestant. It is started strictly for Protestants to answer questions. Thanks.

I'm trying . . .

If it "made sense" all scientists, philosophers and nobel laureates would be christians today. Did the phrase "eat my flesh and drink my blood" in John 6 make sense to the disciples? Paul was a "learned man" but he had thought Christ was a heretic until his journey to Damascus, Peter was a mere fisherman, an illiterate and yet he understood the gospel well enough to give his earthshaking speech on the day of pentecost. Faith cannot be obtained by logical reasoning . . . the bible says that much.

You need the Holy Spirit first

Ofcourse you need the Holy Spirit first and then after that does it contiue to not make any sense?

pray tell, what does the bible tell you to take along with scripture? history? Provide bible verses to support this pls. Remember Joshua's command to the jews . . . this book of the law (the books of Moses) shall not depart out of thy mouth . . .

Dude I asked you a question, you siad you would answer so please answer.

Does the Bible say we should go by scripture ALONE?

Now not to be redundant but I already provided that for Bobbyaf

2 Thessalonians 2:15
Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.

So you see we should go by what they said not just what they wrote. Not everything they said was written was it?

I'm trying . . .

Really? by not answering the questions?

This is my last post here

thank God.

she's not asking anything new, its the same recycled falsehoods.
She's not the type open to alternative viewpoints . . . i wonder how her husband (if she has one) copes with her . . . i'm out of the thread as well. Good luck finding "answers" lady

thou hypocrite, when you guys start 10 new threads on bashing Catholics you are quick to jump in and bash catholics with the same redundant falsehoods, but when questioned about your own faith you simply allude it to the same old questions.

Why haven't you been able to stand firm in the faith and answer questions, you do the same thing over and over again David it is a pattern and everyone knows it now. When asked todefend your belief, you simply turn around say the other person is the problem, David answer the questions.

Did the verse in 2 Timothy say that we should go by Bible ALONE?

Does any verse in the Bible say we should go by Bible ALONE?

You want to follow Bible ALONE, prove that it is biblical, and when you are able to do that, I will gladly follow Bible ALONE. And yes I will accept defeat. Can you prove that Bible ALONE is biblical?

So when you were asking for my input to this thread did you not expect me to have posted in it? So what is this utter nonsense about my not respecting your request for not posting in your thread?

Dude I specifically asked you not to post, because David already started posting and I wanted it to not get off track. If you'd posted first, David would have been asked not to post. But he beat you to it. Simple.

But since you insisted on posting, answer the questions.


You guys have a nice way of avoiding the issue and facing the truth. ANSWER THE QUESTIONS.

Dude I asked you a question, you siad you would answer so please answer.

Does the Bible say we should go by scripture ALONE?

Now not to be redundant but I already provided that for Bobbyaf

2 Thessalonians 2:15
Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.

So you see we should go by what they said not just what they wrote. Not everything they said was written was it?

sigh!

@lady,

This is all I will be saying here.

The answer u seek is already in the verse u quoted above:

2Thessalonians 2:15
(15)  Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

I can't imagine why u can't see that the verse above is asking to hold unto one particular thing/message; not different things,but different mediums of communication(by word or our epistle).
It simply means that the same message;communicated by word or by letters(epistles),have to be held unto.It doesn't mean that the message delivered by the differing mediums differ in one way or the other;or that the medium used introduces different stuff from the other medium.
Which simply takes us back to what we've been saying all along that any tradition called Christian must be supported 100% by the bible.Anything not supported or backed by the bible is false.
And a lot of Catholic tradition have been found wanting by the bible.They've all been stated one way or another through Bobbyafs thread.

Conclusion:
Scripture alone is perfectly fine cos we are assured that it contains all we need and also contains everything which was taught orally by the apostles(2 thessalonians 2:15).

ttalks:

sigh!

@lady,

This is all I will be saying here.

The answer u seek is already in the verse u quoted above:

2Thessalonians 2:15
(15) Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

I can't imagine why u can't see that the verse above is asking to hold unto one particular thing/message; not different things,but different mediums of communication(by word or our epistle).
It simply means that the same message;communicated by word or by letters(epistles),have to be held unto.It doesn't mean that the message delivered by the differing mediums differ in one way or the other;or that the medium used introduces different stuff from the other medium.
Which simply takes us back to what we've been saying all along that any tradition called Christian must be supported 100% by the bible.Anything not supported or backed by the bible is false.
And a lot of Catholic tradition have been found wanting by the bible.They've all been stated one way or another through Bobbyafs thread.

Conclusion:
Scripture alone is perfectly fine cos we are assured that it contains all we need and also contains everything which was taught orally by the apostles(2 thessalonians 2:15).

sigh!
@ ttalks

You know very well that the passage doesn't put a cap on things that are taught.
There were things taught by the apostles and Jesus that were not put into the Bible. And those things are oral tradition.

Yes it is talking about different mediums, and that is exactly my point. You protestants believe in sola scriptura (one medium) this verse prove 2 different mediums, and this verse proves that reading the Bible isn't the ONLY way to get the Word of God. That is my point and you guys proved it for me thank you.

But let me tell you where you erred in your posts, not everything taught or done by the apostles or Jesus Christ was written down. But they are all implied in scripture. We know that not everything was written down because St. John tells us that.

John 21:25 There were many things that Jesus did, but if these things were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world contain the books that would be written.

So you see there were other things taught but not written, just because they weren't written down does not mean that they are less the Word of God or they are irrelevant.

Also every teaching of the Church is rooted and found in scripture. You guys are the ones misinterpreting it, and seeing what you expect it to be. You already have it in your mind that there are certain things that are absolutely impossible, that even if it were to be shown to you, you wouldn't see it.

For example, you already have it made up in your mind that God cannot have a mother, that idea is just not something that could be comprehended, and therefore must be impossible after all God has been there from the beginning, and no one could have possibly given birth to him, and even though someone did, you can't call her his mother because God cannot have a mother. You make this statement without being able to prove it from the Bible.

That is the reaso why I started this thread. You guys say Catholics cannot prove their belief from the Bible, but you've never once thought that maybe you can't prove your belief from the Bible.
And that's why I want you guys to sit back and prove your belief from the Bible. You say God cannot have a mother, then prove it, you say we must go by Bible ALONE, then prove it, actually you just proved that the doctrine of Bible ALONE is unbiblical.

have a good night, I am off to doing my homework.

@Lady
Thanx for your response, i was able to learn a thing or two from your post, however it still remains a fact that the ethopian church and the coptic church precede the roman catholic church and there bibles are substantially different from the bible passed down by the catholic church.

@talks, davidlyan &bobbyaf
Isn't it weird that you are arguing about the completeness and infallability of the bible with a catholic? if i must remind you the bible which we all use today is a compilation of the catholic church albeit editted by Martin luther. If the catholic church tells us that the bible is not complete we don't have a choice but to accept that as fact. I know for a fact from bible history and evidence within the bible it self that several books were deliberately left out of th bible for political reasons when it was being compiled by the catholic church. This books remain in their archives in the vatican till this day. I also learnt that over thirty gospels of christ were written but only four found there way into the bible. For people suspicious of the catholic church, i would expect you would want to know why these other books were excluded. (that is apart from the story we were told that the editors of the bible did not deem them as divinly inspired)

quote]@Lady
Thanx for your response, i was able to learn a thing or two from your post, however it still remains a fact that the ethopian church and the coptic church precede the roman catholic church and there bibles are substantially different from the bible passed down by the catholic church.

[/quote]

You're very welcome. Maybe we're seeing it differently, but let me explain to the best of my ability why the Church in Rome is the primacy. It is not because the Church in Rome was founded before the other Churches, it is because that is the See of Peter, and it is where he died. It has nothing to do with timeline. Now you're seeing it from the point of timeline as to which church came first, I and all Catholics are seeing it from the unity point, where regardless of when the Church was found the Keys to the Kingdom of heaven was given to Peter and Jesus appoints him as the head of the apostles, so if Peter stayed in Antioch (Peter's first See) and died there it would be known as the Antioch Catholic Church (ACC) today. What matters is the successor of Peter. Christ gave the Keys to a person, not a place, and that power is with the person and not a place, and it is the successor of the person that holds the keys and not a place.

Actually for some more history, back in the day, the See was moved and papal decrees were issued from there and were still valid (can't remember where it was moved to and what Pope moved it), it was later moved back to Rome, so it is not the place that matters, it is the Office that matters. The Papal Office is valid no matter where it is in the world. Up until 1054, the Eastern Orthodox was united with Rome.

But I am glad you learned something. God bless.

[quote]I know for a fact from bible history and evidence within the bible it self that several books were deliberately left out of th bible for political reasons when it was being compiled by the catholic church

It wasn't for Political reasons, it's not like it's some sort of conspiracy theory, having examined these books myself, most are incomplete, most were not written by the people that it claims as its author, and most were written well after the 1st century. Also there were gnostic writings as well, and the Church ofcourse had to check these writings and make sure that they are in line with the traditions that the apostles taught them. The gnostic writings are not in line with the traditions of the apostles, and they can be very convincing so when you read them be careful.

This books remain in their archives in the vatican till this day. I also learnt that over thirty gospels of christ were written but only four found there way into the bible. For people suspicious of the catholic church, i would expect you would want to know why these other books were excluded. (that is apart from the story we were told that the editors of the bible did not deem them as divinly inspired)

ok seriously these books are online, so it's not hidden in a secret archive in the Vatican, if I can get access to them you can. You know about them because the Vatican isn't trying to hide anything from anyone, that's why protestant theologians have copies of them. They're very much accessible.

If anything the Catholic Church has been nothing but truthful. People need to stop looking at the Vatican as some kind of secret service agency, it is not the FBI, and does not intend to be. It really is not that serious.

If you can't find them they are nonexistent. Remember that the dead sea scrolls were found recently, I bet people that lived before then were saying the same thing as you are, "the vatican has them hidden somewhere" and what happens? they're discovered

Being a protestant or a catholic is not the criteria for taking anybody to heaven.It is being a christian.A real christian,because we now have false christians,false teachers,false pastors and so on.The question is are you a real christian? Catholicism and protestamism and charismatism and all the other isms all started after Christ ascended to heaven.Even the believers were not called christians until after the ascension of God.Its not the name we bear that really matters.Its us.Are you a bride of Christ?Are you as an individual ready for the coming of Jesus.Let's not swerve into vain jangling.If there's something important o correct,lets do so instead of employing political gimmicks to downplay the other.

@Image 123
Well said

@Image123

Well see that sounds really good and all, and while I agree that even though you are in the Church it doesn't mean you are being a true christian, but the whole it doesn't matter, it relly does, especially since the Church isn't about individualism, it is about being a community. Yes you as an individual have to make sure that you are always in the State of Grace with God, but you also have a duty to the community, and this community that Christ prayed for is the Church and he prayed for unity. He prayed that the Church may be ONE. Even St. Paul speaks of the Church being one, and he tells us that the Church is the body of Christ, and in a body you don't have different beliefs. A leg cannot say I want to believe in A and then the arm say I want to believe in B. Look at it like this, we have different blood types, type A, B, O (I think that's correct) well, a leg cannot have type A while the arm has type B. I hope you see what I am saying.

So while it's a good speech to say it doesn't matter what Church you belong to, all that matters is that you're a good Christian, it doesn't agree with Christ's prayer and Paul's teaching.

@ KunleOshob

Sorry I forgot to touch on this point you made. You said something about the Bible being incomplete.
The Catholic Bible is complete, the Protestant Bible isn't.
Remember there really wasn't a Bible until the Church put it together. So to say that the Bible or the Catholic Bible is not complete is to say that the Bible as we know it today was in existence before the Church put it together, as in it was already called the Bible before the Church put it together and we know that isn't correct.

Just wanted to point that out.
Ok have a blessed day.

@Lady
I said it is not complete becos there were some books such as the book of enoch which was considered scripture by the early christians is conspiciously missing from the bible and we all know from the book of genesis tht enoch was very close to God. The book of enoch is included in the ethopian bible. There are several other books considered scripture in the bible that are not included as well. I could supply you with a list if you so desire

KunleOshob:

@Lady
I said it is not complete becos there were some books such as the book of enoch which was considered scripture by the early christians is conspiciously missing from the bible and we all know from the book of genesis tht enoch was very close to God. The book of enoch is included in the ethopian bible. There are several other books considered scripture in the bible that are not included as well. I could supply you with a list if you so desire

Are you confusing the Church of Ethiopia with the Coptic Church?
The Coptic Church is the one that has existed since the time of the apostles, from the apostle Mark (I tbelieve that's the one)
But the Ethiopian church claims that it was founded by the eunuch that was baptised by Philip. Those are different churches, although they came to an agreement later.
That church was not included in THE CHURCH, they are monophysites (research that and the come back and tell me what you found about their belief)


And I am telling you that the only real canonized books of the Bible are those canonized by the council of carthage. Ethiopia canonized its own set of books in addition to those that were canonized by the Church (East and West).

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm

As I stated there was no Bible until it was compiled and canonized by the Church (East and West) remember at that time there was no schisms between east and west so everyone was in union with Rome, including the Ethiopians. Each region went by the traditions of the apostles that founded them, and the writings of the church fathers in their regions. at the councils that were held that discussed the bible all these books were disputed and then decided upon by unanimous vote.

As for the book of enoch it is neither found in the Alexandrine Canon or the Palestinian canon. So who knows where it came from. Like I said be very careful. Do some more research on the belief of the coptic church, God bless them, we love them, and we all hope to be united soon. no more schisms, please.

@lady
thanx for the extra info, i would do more reseacrh meanwhile check out this list of books that were referenced in the bible and missing from it.

Books Mentioned, But Not Found, In The Bible
There are between eighteen to twenty-four books mentioned in the Bible, but not included. The variation is due to possible double mentions using differing names for the same book.

Book of the Covenant
♦ Exodus 24:7 And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient.
There are those that believe the Book of the Covenant is found in Exodus chapters 20 through 23. There are no authoritative sources for this text.
Book of the Wars of the Lord
♦ Numbers 21:14 Wherefore it is said in the book of the wars of the Lord, What he did in the Red sea, and in the brooks of Arnon,
Certain sources believe that this is to be found by drawing text from several Old Testament books. There are no authoritative sources for this text.
Book of Jasher
♦ Joshua 10:13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.
♦ 2 Samuel 1:18 (Also he bade them teach the children of Judah the use of the bow: behold, it is written in the book of Jasher.)
The Manner of the Kingdom / Book of Statutes
♦ 1 Samuel 10:25 Then Samuel told the people the manner of the kingdom, and wrote it in a book, and laid it up before the Lord. And Samuel sent all the people away, every man to his house.
Book of Samuel the Seer
♦ 1 Chronicles 29:29 Now the acts of David the king, first and last, behold, they are written in the book of Samuel the seer, and in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the book of Gad the seer,
Nathan the Prophet
♦ 1 Chronicles 29:29 Now the acts of David the king, first and last, behold, they are written in the book of Samuel the seer, and in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the book of Gad the seer,
♦ 2 Chronicles 9:29 Now the rest of the acts of Solomon, first and last, are they not written in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and in the visions of Iddo the seer against Jeroboam the son of Nebat?
Acts of Solomon
♦ 1 Kings 11:41 And the rest of the acts of Solomon, and all that he did, and his wisdom, are they not written in the book of the acts of Solomon?
Shemaiah the Prophet
♦ 2 Chronicles 12:15 Now the acts of Rehoboam, first and last, are they not written in the book of Shemaiah the prophet, and of Iddo the seer concerning genealogies? And there were wars between Rehoboam and Jeroboam continually.
Prophecy of Abijah
♦ 2 Chronicles 9:29 Now the rest of the acts of Solomon, first and last, are they not written in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and in the visions of Iddo the seer against Jeroboam the son of Nebat?
Story of Prophet Iddo
♦ 2 Chronicles 13:22 And the rest of the acts of Abijah, and his ways, and his sayings, are written in the story of the prophet Iddo.
Visions of Iddo the Seer
♦ 2 Chronicles 9:29 Now the rest of the acts of Solomon, first and last, are they not written in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and in the visions of Iddo the seer against Jeroboam the son of Nebat?
Iddo Genealogies
♦ 2 Chronicles 12:15 Now the acts of Rehoboam, first and last, are they not written in the book of Shemaiah the prophet, and of Iddo the seer concerning genealogies? And there were wars between Rehoboam and Jeroboam continually
Book of Jehu
♦ 2 Chronicles 20:34 Now the rest of the acts of Jehoshaphat, first and last, behold, they are written in the book of Jehu the son of Hanani, who is mentioned in the book of the kings of Israel.
Sayings of the Seers
♦ 2 Chronicles 33:19 His prayer also, and how God was intreated of him, and all his sin, and his trespass, and the places wherein he built high places, and set up groves and graven images, before he was humbled: behold, they are written among the sayings of the seers.
Book of Enoch
♦ Jude 1:14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
Book of Gad the Seer
♦ 1 Chronicles 29:29 Now the acts of David the king, first and last, behold, they are written in the book of Samuel the seer, and in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the book of Gad the seer,
Epistle to Corinth
♦ 1 Corinthians 5:9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
Epistle to the Ephesians (Missing)
♦ Ephesians 3:3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, 4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
Epistle from Laodicea to the Colossians (Missing)
♦ Colossians 4:16 And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea.
Nazarene Prophecy Source
♦ Matthew 2:23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene
Acts of Uziah
♦ 2 Chronicles 26:22 Now the rest of the acts of Uzziah, first and last, did Isaiah the prophet, the son of Amoz, write.
The Annals of King David
♦ 1 Chronicles 27:24 Joab son of Zeruiah began to count the men but did not finish. Wrath came on Israel on account of this numbering, and the number was not entered in the book of the annals of King David.
Jude, the Missing Epistle
♦ Jude 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

@Image123

Well see that sounds really good and all, and while I agree that even though you are in the Church it doesn't mean you are being a true christian, but the whole it doesn't matter, it relly does, especially since the Church isn't about individualism, it is about being a community. Yes you as an individual have to make sure that you are always in the State of Grace with God, but you also have a duty to the community, and this community that Christ prayed for is the Church and he prayed for unity. He prayed that the Church may be ONE. Even St. Paul speaks of the Church being one, and he tells us that the Church is the body of Christ, and in a body you don't have different beliefs. A leg cannot say I want to believe in A and then the arm say I want to believe in B. Look at it like this, we have different blood types, type A, B, O (I think that's correct) well, a leg cannot have type A while the arm has type B. I hope you see what I am saying.

So while it's a good speech to say it doesn't matter what Church you belong to, all that matters is that you're a good Christian, it doesn't agree with Christ's prayer and Paul's teaching

He prayed and taught that believers should be one,not that believers and unbelievers should join hands together in ecumenism.When people do not believe the same things especially about God and the way of salvation,they're not likely to walk together.I don't remember saying the boldened phrase above

@kunleOshob

I've been following your posts 4 a while now and its obvious to me that you're convinced the bible (that is, what we protestants call the bible) is incomplete. I'm aware that there are several books which have not been included in the books which make up the bible and also the Vatican is supposed to have books which have been concealed.

question is, in your opinion why have these books been kept away from public knowledge and what difference will they make to our beliefs if we get our hands on them?

Image123:


He prayed and taught that believers should be one,not that believers and unbelievers should join hands together in ecumenism.When people do not believe the same things especially about God and the way of salvation,they're not likely to walk together.I don't remember saying the boldened phrase above

I just feel i should remind you that church denominations as we have it today is unscriptural and against the teachings of the Apostles. Here is what paul as to say about it:
1 Corinthians 1:10-17:

Divisions in the Church


10 I appeal to you, dear brothers and sisters, by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, to live in harmony with each other. Let there be no divisions in the church. Rather, be of one mind, united in thought and purpose. 11 For some members of Chloe’s household have told me about your quarrels, my dear brothers and sisters. 12 Some of you are saying, “I am a follower of Paul.” Others are saying, “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Peter” or “I follow only Christ.”

13 Has Christ been divided into factions? Was I, Paul, crucified for you? Were any of you baptized in the name of Paul? Of course not! 14 I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 for now no one can say they were baptized in my name. 16 (Oh yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas, but I don’t remember baptizing anyone else.) 17 For Christ didn’t send me to baptize, but to preach the Good News—and not with clever speech, for fear that the cross of Christ would lose its power.

simmy:

@kunleOshob

I've been following your posts 4 a while now and its obvious to me that you're convinced the bible (that is, what we protestants call the bible) is incomplete. I'm aware that there are several books which have not been included in the books which make up the bible and also the Vatican is supposed to have books which have been concealed.

question is, in your opinion why have these books been kept away from public knowledge and what difference will they make to our beliefs if we get our hands on them?

From what i learnt some books were kept away from the public becos it did not fit the idea of christianity was being promoted by the catholic bishops of that time and emperor constantine who ordered the compilation of the bible. also some books were considered of "higher spiritual value" hence not meant for public consumption and to be used by a select few. I don't think the books would fundermentally change the gospel of christ but i believe we would be able to see things in a new perpective. Even from the bible we have, if you study it with an open mind you would discover that a lot of doctrines and practises held as true in today's churches lack biblical basis. they are merely doctrine of men.

@kunleoshob
What do you mean by unscriptural.There were no long term factions of christians in the new testament.There was seperation from unbelievers though.

Image123:

@kunleoshob
What do you mean by unscriptural.There were no long term factions of christians in the new testament.There was seperation from unbelievers though.

The passage i quoted from 1 corinthians is evidence that people had already started trying to create variuos sects/ denominations as far back as the time of the apostles (human nature) and paul cautioned them about it. However several centuries later human beings being what they are still went on to create several different sects and today christianity is no longer united.

@Image123

I was not quoting you directly, I summed up what you were saying, which really is "it doesn't matter what church you belong to" when you stated that being a protestant or catholic isn't what will get u to heaven. And I was stating that while that may sound like a good speech, it is unbiblical. It does matter, being in the church Christ founded does matter, as long as you choose to be a Christian. Christ prayed for ONE CHURCH, with ONE BELIEF, not different Churches with different belief.
You also mentioned that it is about you yourself, and that in itself is unbiblical, we are called to be a christian community. What you speak of is selfishness, one that focuses on his own salvation alone is selfish.

He prayed and taught that believers should be one,not that believers and unbelievers should join hands together in ecumenism.When people do not believe the same things especially about God and the way of salvation,they're not likely to walk together.I don't remember saying the boldened phrase above

How are the believers supposed to be one if they do not join hands together in ecumenism? Not joining hands together in ecumenism is not being one, and that is exactly what Christ prayed against.
How are people supposed to have the same belief about God and the way of salvation if everyone is going their own way and doing their own thing, and telling themselves that it doesn't matter if they are protestants or catholics (i wonder do u know what catholic is?)

@lady
thanx for the extra information, i would do more reseacrh meanwhile check out this list of books that were referenced in the bible and missing from it.

Books Mentioned, But Not Found, In The Bible
There are between eighteen to twenty-four books mentioned in the Bible, but not included. The variation is due to possible double mentions using differing names for the same book

You're welcome

I am aware of the books mentioned in the Bible, actually you just proved that sola scriptura is unbiblical because there are sources in the Bible about books that are not in the Bible, thanks for that.

But as I was saying, I am aware of the books mentioned in the Bible, but that in no way states that the Bible is incomplete. As I stated before, to state that the Bible is incomplete is to say that the Bible was already in existence before its canonization which would be contradictory, because it was after canonization that the Bible came to be.

If those books were canonized and are missing from the Bible, then you can correctly say that the Bible is incomplete, but if they were never canonized then you are incorrect in saying that the Bible is incomplete.

Let me put it like this.

You have 50 books written, and they are read by different communities, but they are not all put together by the appointed authorities and defined as scripture. Those books would be equivalent to books written today for inspiration, we can learn from them, they are not scripture.

But let's say that 30 of those books were now defined as scripture, does that mean that the remaining 20 books are scripture? No, they weren't defined as scripture. They can be referenced, they can be regarded as good moral readings, but they are not scripture. If they were not defined as scripture they were never scripture.

So now from those 30 books that were defined as scripture, if 10 were taken out after being defined as scripture, then you can say that the Canon is incomplete, because scripture was taken out.

So the ones defined as scripture are the only scripture, the ones not defined as scripture are not scripture, therefore just because they are mentioned does not mean that they are scripture.

So in reality the Bible is not incomplete (catholic bible), because those that were defined as canon are still canon.

Now for the ethiopian church (not coptic church) they do not have the authority to define scripture, what they define is for themselves and not scripture for christians, they were not apostolic and therefore had no say so as to which books were to be included. They can regard them as scripture all they want, but I can guarantee you that in heaven those books are not regarded as scripture. They do not hold any key to bind and loose.

From what i learnt some books were kept away from the public becos it did not fit the idea of christianity was being promoted by the catholic bishops of that time and emperor constantine who ordered the compilation of the bible. also some books were considered of "higher spiritual value" hence not meant for public consumption and to be used by a select few. I don't think the books would fundermentally change the gospel of christ but i believe we would be able to see things in a new perpective. Even from the bible we have, if you study it with an open mind you would discover that a lot of doctrines and practises held as true in today's churches lack biblical basis. they are merely doctrine of men

You make the statement as if it was a conspiracy by the Catholic Bishops, are you not aware that even Paul and several other apostles asked that the christians beware of those who preach a false doctrine?
Would you then say that they too were trying to teach what their idea of christianity was?
Are you aware that there were many writings that denied the divinity of Christ and his humanity?

How would you expect that the Church should have handled the situation of false prophets at that time?

The reason the Bible was put together was because there were many false doctrines passing around and saying that they were holding on to the true teachings of Christ. So the church decides to put together the canon or measuring stick to tell people what the teaching of Christ is. If it didn't align with the Bible it wasn't the teaching of Christ. How were they to know which one was true, they stuck to the ones that were written earlier and were written by the apostles or by the direct disciples of the apostles themselves, and were in line with the traditions of the apostles.
Constantine comes into the picture, not because he actually cared for what happened to the church but because he didn't want a riot, he wanted a rule or measuring stick for the christians to go by so that people won't start riots fighting for who was teaching the truth about Christ. Dude just didn't want his city to burn down.

The books could have probably changed the teaching of Christ because most of them taught that Christ wasn't divine, or that he wasn't human, or that one side of his nature had supremacy over the other side, and so on and so forth. So yeah it would have changed everything. But thank God, he stuck to his promise to guide us into all truth.