Ubenedictus:
the Catholic Church... who else?

That's a big lie! Before the Roman Catholic Church began to exist, people of God read and were guided by the books in the Bible now.

A growing number of honest-hearted truth seekers are stumbling over a startling allegation: the claim that the Roman Catholic Church is responsible for providing the world with the Bible as we now know it. It is stated that the Roman Catholic Church, at the Council of Nicæa, selected which writings to include, deciding what books were inspired while rejecting others as uninspired.

If this assertion is true, the problem is immediately apparent: considering how many unscriptural beliefs are taught and practiced by the Roman Catholic Church, how can one be assured that the modern Bible is the word of Yahuwah? What if the Roman Catholic Church rejected some books that should have been included? If Catholicism is responsible for our modern Bible, how can we be sure it is correct?

The idea that the Roman Catholic Church is solely responsible for providing the world with the Holy Bible comes from, not surprisingly, the Roman Catholics themselves. The Faith of Millions: The Credentials of the Catholic Religion clearly spells out the reasoning used for this incredible claim:

It was the Catholic Church which gathered up all these books [of the New Testament], placed them within the covers of a single volume, and thus gave to the world what is known today as the Bible...



1. The New Testament was written in its entirety by Catholics.
2. St. Peter, the first pope of the Catholic Church, is the author of two of its epistles.
3. The Catholic Church determined the canon or list of books to constitute the New Testament.
4. The declaration of the Catholic Church that the books of the New Testament are all inspired by God constitutes the sole authority for the universal belief of both Catholics and Protestants in their inspired character.
5. The Catholic Church existed before the New Testament.
6. The Catholic Church is the mother of the New Testament

If she had not scrutinized carefully the writings of her children, rejecting some and approving others as worthy of inclusion in the canon of the New Testament, there would be no New Testament today.

If she had not declared the books composing the New Testament to be the inspired word of God, we would not know it.

The only authority which non-Catholics have for the inspiration of the Scriptures is the authority of the Catholic Church. If the latter be rejected, there remain no logical grounds for retention of the cardinal tenet of all Protestants – the inspired character of Scripture.1

The author of this incredible statement is being intentionally misleading. He is deliberately twisting words in a crafty, cunning manner. By using the term “Catholic Church” throughout, one is led to assume that the church being referred to is the Roman Catholic Church. However, this is deceptive. The facts of history prove that the Roman Catholic Church did not come into existence until several hundred years after the New Testament was written. Therefore, the Roman Catholic Church could not, in point of fact, be “the mother of the New Testament” nor could it have “existed before the New Testament.” Therefore, the writers of the New Testament could not have been Roman Catholics!

And here is where the deliberate deception enters. The claim is made about the “Catholic Church” not the “Roman Catholic Church” as most readers would assume. The word “catholic” simply means “universal.” So in that sense, it could be argued that the writers of the New Testament were of the “universal” body of believers which did, in fact, exist, before New Testament times. However, the implication that it is only the declaration of the Roman Catholic Church “that the books of the New Testament are all inspired by God constitutes the sole authority for the universal belief of both Catholics and Protestants in their inspired character” is both incorrect and blasphemous.

Such a statement weakens the authority of the Bible and places the Roman Catholic Church in a position superior to Scripture. If the Word of YAH is holy only because the pope declares it to be so, that places the pope in a more important position than Yahuwah Himself, the divine Author.

When viewed in the light of the documented facts of history, such bold claims are revealed to be nothing more than audacious, deceptive boasts.

The Council of Nicæa (AD 325) was convened by Constantine I for ecumenical purposes only. He wanted to unify Christianity for his own, secular purposes. It is from this Council that we get the Nicene Creed. No records exist of any discussion at that time pertaining to which books should comprise the sacred canon and which should be left out.

The New Testament as it exists today was in circulation and recognized as inspired long before the Council of Nicæa. All of the books that comprise the New Testament were written by AD 95. Even during Paul’s lifetime, his letters were already in circulation among the early believers. Paul instructed the members in Colossæ: “Now when this epistle is read among you, see that it is read also in the church of the Laodiceans, and that you likewise read the epistle from Laodicea.” (Colossians 4:16, NKJV. See also, 1 Thessalonians 5:27.)

By the middle of the second century, the four gospels were being circulated together. Justin Martyr (AD 100-160) did not cite by name any New Testament writing, but did refer to them with “it is recorded” or as “the memoirs of the apostles.” He also refers in the plural to the Gospels: “For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do ye in remembrance of Me . . . ."2
Around 170-175 AD Tatian, a disciple of Justin, created a harmony of the four orthodox gospels known as the Diatessaron. This text was accepted in some circles, even being used to replace the four gospels, but this success was short lived. What this harmony reveals, however, is that the church was beginning to recognize only four gospels.3

This is an important point because it clearly rejects all of the Gnostic Gospels, which were written between the second and fourth centuries after Christ. Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian all quote from, mention or name all of the books of the New Testament with the exceptions of Philemon, Jude James, 2 Peter, and 2 and 3 John. Years before the Council of Nicæa, Origen (AD 185-254) mentioned all of the books of both the Old and the New Testaments! Eusebius, who has been called the “Father of Ecclesiastical History,” gave an account of the persecution that occurred under the Emperor Diocletian. He listed all the books of the New Testament. Athanasius, bishop at Alexandria, likewise listed all of the New Testament books. These are all pre-Roman Catholic writers, yet all refer in some way to the books that comprise the New Testament canon.

The Muratorian Canon provides still further conclusive and unique evidence that the New Testament was compiled before and apart from any action of the Roman Catholic Church. This document is a manuscript fragment that contains the oldest known listing of New Testament books. Most scholars believe it was written sometime between AD 170 and AD 200. The only books missing from the listing are Hebrews, 1 and 2 Peter and 3 John. It is not a Roman Catholic document.

The Roman Catholic Church as it is today was not in existence during the first three centuries after Christ. It only rose to prominence after the ecumenical efforts of Constantine I legalized Christianity. And even then, it was a process that spanned several centuries.

The very first historical reference to the exact 27 books that make up the New Testament did not appear until well after the Council of Nicæa. In the letter penned by Athanasius, “Easter Letter” of AD 367, all 27 books were listed. The Synod of Hippo (AD 393) apparently referred to a list of writings that could be read in church. Nothing from this synod is still in existence today. It is only known because it was referenced in the Synod of Carthage (AD 397). “Even this historical reference from Carthage, Canon 24, does not ‘list’ every single document. For example, it reads, ‘the gospels, four books…’ The only reason for this list is to confirm which writings are ‘sacred’ and should be read in a church service. There is no comment as to why and how this list was agreed upon.”4

In the light of the foregoing, the boastful claim of the Roman Catholic Church that it has been the sole guardian and preserver of the sacred Scriptures down to the present, is nothing but pure falsehood. The Bible is not a Catholic book. Catholics did not write it, nor does their doctrines and church meet the description of the doctrine and church of which it speaks. The New Testament was completed before the end of the first century, A.D. The things in it do not correspond to the Catholic Church which hundreds of years after the death of the apostles slowly evolved into what it now is. The [Roman] Catholic Church is not the original and true church, but a "church" born of many departures and corruptions from the New Testament church.

Four criteria were broadly used to determine whether the various writings were inspired by the Spirit of YAH and should be included in the sacred canon:

The author was either an apostle, closely connected with an apostle or first-hand witness to the events described.
The book was widely accepted by the body of early believers as being true.
The doctrines taught were consistent with that taught in other inspired works.
The writing bore evidence of moral superiority and spiritual values as demonstrated by the work of the Holy Spirit upon the heart in response to what was taught in the book.
It is important to understand that no church and no action of men are responsible for Holy Scripture. No council somehow made a book “inspired.” The various statements of the councils merely recognized what the body of believers had already established as inspired writ. Michael J. Kruger, author of The Question of Canon, observes:

When people discover that Nicea did not decide the canon, the follow up question is usually, “Which council did decide the canon?” Surely we could not have a canon without some sort of authoritative, official act of the church by which it was decided. Surely we have a canon because some group of men somewhere voted on it. Right?

This whole line of reasoning reveals a fundamental assumption about the New Testament canon that needs to be corrected, namely that it was (or had to be) decided by a church council. The fact of the matter is that when we look into early church history there is no such council. Sure, there are regional church councils that made declarations about the canon (Laodicea, Hippo, Carthage). But these regional councils did not just “pick” books they happened to like, but affirmed the books they believed had functioned as foundational documents for the Christian faith. In other words, these councils were declaring the way things had been, not the way they wanted them to be.

Thus, these councils did not create, authorize, or determine the canon. They simply were part of the process of recognizing a canon that was already there.

Source: https://www.worldslastchance.com/winds-of-doctrine/did-the-roman-catholic-church-really-give-us-the-bible.html

SMH

MiddleDimension:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvYeXh3JHco

i do not believe in miracles anyway, but here is one of you guys, Benny Hinn, agreeing with the catholics that what they call Eucharist is the true body and blood of Jesus like Jesus said in the bible. He claimed that there are 'healings' because of that in those churches too.

Not the same thing - Hinn qualified it and said "in the spirit, its his body". Which is exactly what separates what Protestants from what mainstream Catholics believe....that the bread literally transforms into the physical body at the time of eating. Remember, even Jesus qualified it and said "as often as you do this, do it in remembrance of me". Remembrance o...

Furthermore, the church is called the body of Christ. Is this also the case everyone in church is physically Christ's body like Catholics believe? Of course not - it is a figure of speech to describe a deeper spiritual truth. Spiritual things often do not have appropriate physical words to convey their meaning.

Btw, Hinn is wrong on this. Your faithfulness to your church is not the primary driver to getting healed. There are millions of faithful church people that don't have healing. Its faith in the love of God.

And the father he was talking about is spelt Makary...Makary Younan

analice107:

hahahahahaha. Guy l'm not here to teach you Concord in English grammar.

Give your life to Christ sir.

Did Christ tell you he doesn't have his life?

If I weren't a Christian before now by the grace of God and it happened I read your posts here, I will never be a Christian.

Such dishonesty you exhibit here that you can't admit a simple truth about the bible compilation as the thread topic denied the compilers.

...Now you have employed a diversionary tactics using "salvation and the book of life" as if it's the topic of discourse and the people you respond to ignorant of it.

No wonder you were banned previously for earlier making off-topic posts were you made them.

Change your mindset dear Christian.

Ubenedictus:


are you so blind that you can't see it?

are you such a liar that you cannot point them out?

when i called you a false accuser, that is the truth
you call the truth name calling, that's no surprise either

Ubenedictus:

since you jumped into the discussion.
please give us the list of the early Christians from the 1st to the 4th century who preserved and used your exact same Bible and prove they aren't Catholic.

I already proved the early church is not the roman catholic church which you belong to.
Peter Paul and all the original teachers didn't teach about having statues, and praying to deceased saints, and that's just a couple of things

Ubenedictus:
then why is it that every Christian from the early Church who wrote about the topic disagree with you. could it be because the Protestants have departed from historic and apostolic Christianity and follow 15th century heresy?

truly pointing out that mary is not to be given any special place in faith is not attacking her
but you confused uben reply with garbage not related to what is said,



you uben cannot reply to what is said, but twist everything around,
which of course is what haters of the truth do, they lie

Ubenedictus:




[quote author=johnw74 post=61115659]


The early church is not the roman catholic church which you belong to
the early church never taught to have statues, the early church never prayed to them
the early church never followed mary but only Jesus

however you uben lie in most posts showing who is the god of your church that you follow[\quote]

since you jumped into the discussion.


please give us the list of the early Christians from the 1st to the 4th century who preserved and used your exact same Bible and prove they aren't Catholic.

pointing out that mary is not to be given any special place in faith is not attacking her
but lie away uben

then why is it that every Christian from the early Church who wrote about the topic disagree with you. could it be because the Protestants have departed from historic and apostolic Christianity and follow 15th century heresy?

your church that is filled with pedophiles and child abuse is truly not the church established by Christ
you are deceived by satan the god of the rcc

my church does have humans who make mistakes, but it also has saints, great men and women and the manifestation of God's presence.


If among the apostles personally handpicked by Jesus there is Judas, then I am not surprised that there exist imperfect people in the church he established. Are all in your church formed by 21st century men perfect?

Hey uben, you posted this twice, and both times in the wrong confused format,
that's what comes from hating the truth.

1Co_14:33  For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

more on ubens and Catholicism's SHOCKING Attitude Toward The Bible!


Mary per Catholicism

Apparitions of Mary
1531, Guadalupe Mexico, appearance to Juan Diego.
These are the words of the apparition. Let’s take a look at them and pay close attention to who is exalted. Also, notice that the apparition claims perfection and holiness. "Know, know for sure, my dearest, littlest, and youngest son, that I am the perfect and ever Virgin Holy Mary.” (theotokos.org.uk/pages/approved/words/wordguad.html)
Marian Apparition, Guadalupe, Mexio, 1531, “I am truly your merciful Mother, yours and all the people who live united in this land and of all the other people of different ancestries, my lovers, who love me, those who seek me, those who trust in me. Here I will hear their weeping, their complaints and heal all their sorrows, hardships and sufferings.” (theotokos.org.uk/pages/approved/words/wordguad.html)
Marian Apparition, Guadalupe, Mexio, 1531, “Am I not here, I, who am your Mother? Are you not under my shadow and protection? Am I not the source of your joy? Are you not in the hollow of my mantle, in the crossing of my arms? Do you need anything more? (theotokos.org.uk/pages/approved/words/wordguad.html)

^^^ this mary thinks she is the source of joy,
she thinks she is above God.

Christians know that the real Mary had other children after Jesus,
rc's don't believe the Bible and so change and twist it, like other so called christian sects do

this mary say's that rc's seek her.
Real Christians seek God.

uben, your mary, is in fact satan the devil,
he tried to put himself above God and lost,
but he is above God in the rcc as the fake mary,
calling him-her self the source of joy,
not mentioning God at all but saying to seek him-her-mary
and you roman catholics believe satan, the fake mary.

DoctorAlien:


That's a big lie! Before the Roman Catholic Church began to exist, people of God read and were guided by the books in the Bible now.

please list the people who used the Bible before the Catholic Church and weren't Catholic, is that too hard for you.



if you are making a claim back it up, if you claim Christians were using the current Bible and they weren't Catholics, then name them.

if you can't, why not learn.

DoctorAlien:
and I am telling you that Roman Catholics did not exist before Constantine. How hard is it to understand?

IH! I should agree because you said it? were is you proof?


I can show writings dated from 200 years before Constantine all affirming that the Church of Christ is the Catholic Church. where is your proof.

back it up or keep shut

johnw74:
more on ubens and Catholicism's SHOCKING Attitude Toward The Bible!


Mary per Catholicism

Apparitions of Mary
1531, Guadalupe Mexico, appearance to Juan Diego.
These are the words of the apparition. Let’s take a look at them and pay close attention to who is exalted. Also, notice that the apparition claims perfection and holiness. "Know, know for sure, my dearest, littlest, and youngest son, that I am the perfect and ever Virgin Holy Mary.” (theotokos.org.uk/pages/approved/words/wordguad.html)
Marian Apparition, Guadalupe, Mexio, 1531, “I am truly your merciful Mother, yours and all the people who live united in this land and of all the other people of different ancestries, my lovers, who love me, those who seek me, those who trust in me. Here I will hear their weeping, their complaints and heal all their sorrows, hardships and sufferings.” (theotokos.org.uk/pages/approved/words/wordguad.html)
Marian Apparition, Guadalupe, Mexio, 1531, “Am I not here, I, who am your Mother? Are you not under my shadow and protection? Am I not the source of your joy? Are you not in the hollow of my mantle, in the crossing of my arms? Do you need anything more? (theotokos.org.uk/pages/approved/words/wordguad.html)

^^^ this mary thinks she is the source of joy,
she thinks she is above God.

Christians know that the real Mary had other children after Jesus,
rc's don't believe the Bible and so change and twist it, like other so called christian sects do

this mary say's that rc's seek her.
Real Christians seek God.

uben, your mary, is in fact satan the devil,
he tried to put himself above God and lost,
but he is above God in the rcc as the fake mary,
calling him-her self the source of joy,
not mentioning God at all but saying to seek him-her-mary
and you roman catholics believe satan, the fake mary.

are you aware that it is considered heresy in the apostolic faith to teach what Protestants teach about Mary.

are you also aware that these your heretical teachings began in the 16th century?

johnw74:


I already proved the early church is not the roman catholic church which you belong to.
Peter Paul and all the original teachers didn't teach about having statues, and praying to deceased saints, and that's just a couple of things






truly pointing out that mary is not to be given any special place in faith is not attacking her
but you confused uben reply with garbage not related to what is said,



you uben cannot reply to what is said, but twist everything around,
which of course is what haters of the truth do, they lie

of course I am not surprised you can't distinguish between your 16th century heresy and the historic Christian faith. sorry, it is a pity.

johnw74:


are you such a liar that you cannot point them out?

when i called you a false accuser, that is the truth
you call the truth name calling, that's no surprise either

on and on he goes. when you are ready to have a respectful discussion let me know.

Ubenedictus:



of course Catholics respect the words of their pastors, the Catholic priest bears the anointing of the apostles successors and Jesus said to his apostles "he who hears you hears me". So yes I am happy to respect the words of a clergyman the Bible supports that. Good enough Catholic priests are usually knowledgeable in their general knowledge... you on the other hand have given us a remix of the king Henry saga and falsely accused Rome of spreading the Christian faith with a sword in Europe... certainly these simply shows your lack of historical knowledge similar to what obtains among pastors,the HOLY spirit didn't teach you these history remix. That is all you and your pastors.

Omo this one nah fatality o....dem don kill u here

Ubenedictus:


are you aware that it is considered heresy in the apostolic faith to teach what Protestants teach about Mary.

are you also aware that these your heretical teachings began in the 16th century?

duh uben, the truth is not heresy, and the rcc is not the true church but is the church of satan.
point out my heretical teachings and i will point out more of your lies and confusion

Ubenedictus:
of course I am not surprised you can't distinguish between your 16th century heresy and the historic Christian faith. sorry, it is a pity.

duh again uben, you are talking about rcc historic faith, not Christian faith.
and yet still again you cannot reply to what is said but twist and lie away, like good little rc's do

johnw74:


I already proved the early church is not the roman catholic church which you belong to.
Peter Paul and all the original teachers didn't teach about having statues, and praying to deceased saints, and that's just a couple of things


truly pointing out that mary is not to be given any special place in faith is not attacking her
but you confused uben reply with garbage not related to what is said,

Ubenedictus:
on and on he goes. when you are ready to have a respectful discussion let me know.

uben, when you are ready to reply to what is said and not twist and run away from it,
then do so, man up if possible.

more on ubens and Catholicism's SHOCKING Attitude Toward The Bible!


1858, Lourdes, France. In 1858 a young girl named Bernadette Soubirous claimed to have seen Mary several times in a cave near Lourdes.

"Kiss the ground as a penance for sinners," (theotokos.org.uk/pages/approved/words/wordlour.html)

1917, Fatima, Portugal. In 1917 three children (Jacinto Marto, Lucia Santos, and Francisco Marto) said that an apparition of Mary appeared to them that was brighter than the sun.

Marian Apparition, 1917, May 13, Fatima, Portugal, “Are you willing to offer yourselves to God to bear all the sufferings He wants to send you, as an act of reparation for the sins by which He is offended, and for the conversion of sinners?” (theotokos.org.uk/pages/approved/words/wordfati.html)
Marian Apparition, 1917, June 13, Fatima, Portugal, "I will take Jacinta and Francisco shortly; but you will stay here for some time to come. Jesus wants to use you to make Me known and loved. He wishes to establish the devotion to My Immaculate Heart throughout the world. I promise salvation to whoever embraces it; these souls will be dear to God, like flowers put by Me to adorn his throne," (theotokos.org.uk/pages/approved/words/wordfati.html)
Marian Apparition, 1917, July 13, Fatima, Portugal, “Sacrifice yourselves for sinners, and say often to Jesus, especially whenever you make a sacrifice: O Jesus, it is for love of Thee, for the conversion of sinners, and in reparation for the sins committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary.” (theotokos.org.uk/pages/approved/words/wordfati.html)


^^^ uben, your mary thinks she is God, she promises salvation:
Act 4:12  Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
of course that name is Jesus Christ. 

and of course it's satan that likes to be looked on as God, this mary and satan are the one and the same devil.

analice107:

May you stand proud on the day of Judgement to defend your pride.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbCV55oIjzs

johnw74:

more on ubens and Catholicism's SHOCKING Attitude Toward The Bible!


1858, Lourdes, France. In 1858 a young girl named Bernadette Soubirous claimed to have seen Mary several times in a cave near Lourdes.

"Kiss the ground as a penance for sinners," (theotokos.org.uk/pages/approved/words/wordlour.html)

1917, Fatima, Portugal. In 1917 three children (Jacinto Marto, Lucia Santos, and Francisco Marto) said that an apparition of Mary appeared to them that was brighter than the sun.

Marian Apparition, 1917, May 13, Fatima, Portugal, “Are you willing to offer yourselves to God to bear all the sufferings He wants to send you, as an act of reparation for the sins by which He is offended, and for the conversion of sinners?” (theotokos.org.uk/pages/approved/words/wordfati.html)
Marian Apparition, 1917, June 13, Fatima, Portugal, "I will take Jacinta and Francisco shortly; but you will stay here for some time to come. Jesus wants to use you to make Me known and loved. He wishes to establish the devotion to My Immaculate Heart throughout the world. I promise salvation to whoever embraces it; these souls will be dear to God, like flowers put by Me to adorn his throne," (theotokos.org.uk/pages/approved/words/wordfati.html)
Marian Apparition, 1917, July 13, Fatima, Portugal, “Sacrifice yourselves for sinners, and say often to Jesus, especially whenever you make a sacrifice: O Jesus, it is for love of Thee, for the conversion of sinners, and in reparation for the sins committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary.” (theotokos.org.uk/pages/approved/words/wordfati.html)


^^^ uben, your mary thinks she is God, she promises salvation:
Act 4:12  Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
of course that name is Jesus Christ. 

and of course it's satan that likes to be looked on as God, this mary and satan are the one and the same devil.

"When you pray the Rosary, say after each mystery: 'O my Jesus, forgive us, save us from the fire of hell. Lead all souls to heaven, especially those who are most in need.' "

"Pray, pray very much, and make sacrifices for sinners; for many souls go to hell, because there are none to sacrifice themselves and pray for them."

Blessed virgin mary never claimed to be God.

blackbriar:



"When you pray the Rosary, say after each mystery: 'O my Jesus, forgive us, save us from the fire of hell. Lead all souls to heaven, especially those who are most in need.' "

"Pray, pray very much, and make sacrifices for sinners; for many souls go to hell, because there are none to sacrifice themselves and pray for them."

Blessed virgin mary never claimed to be God.

in the marian apparition, 1917, June 13, fatima, portugal, your mary-satan said: "I promise salvation to whoever embraces it"

however she lied for there is only one who saves, and that is Jesus Christ, not any mary.

Speaking of Jesus Christ:
Act 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.



of course I know that the Bible-God's word means nothing to rc's, but that's just another one of your many
abominations before God.

johnw74:



in the marian apparition, 1917, June 13, fatima, portugal, your mary-satan said: "I promise salvation to whoever embraces it"

however she lied for there is only one who saves, and that is Jesus Christ, not any mary.

Speaking of Jesus Christ:
Act 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.



of course I know that the Bible-God's word means nothing to rc's, but that's just another one of your many
abominations before God.

If you are brave enough put up her whole message to the children of fatima , let us see the message.
stop editing sentences to suit your goals.

johnw74:



in the marian apparition, 1917, June 13, fatima, portugal, your mary-satan said: "I promise salvation to whoever embraces it"

however she lied for there is only one who saves, and that is Jesus Christ, not any mary.

Speaking of Jesus Christ:
Act 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.



of course I know that the Bible-God's word means nothing to rc's, but that's just another one of your many
abominations before God.

did you even read the prayers.
how can she say i will save you and then still ask you to pray to Jesus to save you from hell....chai

blackbriar:


If you are brave enough put up her whole message to the children of fatima , let us see the message.
stop editing sentences to suit your goals.

i haven't seen the whole message, so why don't you put it up
it won't change what she-he said: "I promise salvation to whoever embraces it"

blackbriar:


did you even read the prayers.
how can she say i will save you and then still ask you to pray to Jesus to save you from hell....chai

so mary-the devill contradicted herself

do you deny it's part of what she said at fatima?

mary:
"I promise salvation to whoever embraces it"

You will hear it often when Catholics and Protestants are discussing their faith. The Protestant quotes a Scripture verse and points to the fact that the Bible is the final authority on faith and morals. But the Catholic will often say something like, “But without the Catholic Church’s Tradition, you Protestants would not have a Bible. The Catholic Church gave us the Bible, therefore you should submit to our Church.” Quite a statement… but is this really true?


Some Questions

Before answering him, we should start off by asking the Catholic a couple of important questions. First, we should ask, “What do you mean by saying the Catholic Church ‘gave us the Bible’?” Is he suggesting that the Catholic Church wrote the Bible? If so, this certainly cannot be the case, since the Old Testament was written long before the Catholic Church existed. Neither can they claim to have written the New Testament, since that was written by the apostles and their close associates. And the apostles knew nothing of those teachings which are uniquely Catholic.

What Catholics generally mean when they say that their Church gave us the Bible is that the Catholic Church, through certain councils, was responsible for revealing to us the “canon” of the Bible, i.e., which books are inspired by God and actually belong in the Bible.

If this is indeed what they mean, then we need to ask him our second question: “When did this happen?” And they will usually say that the canon was finally settled at the Council of Hippo (393 A.D.) and the Council of Carthage (397 A.D.), and it was later restated / reaffirmed at the Council of Trent (1546 A.D.).

This sounds really nice, but there are a number of problems with their claims.


Local, Not Ecumenical

Point #1 - The Councils of Hippo and Carthage were local or “provincial” councils (synods), and they could not “finally settle” the canon or any other issue that affected all the churches. They were not “ecumenical” councils, because their rulings were not binding on the whole church. The reason that this is a problem is because Catholics often stress the idea that we really “need” infallible certainty on the canon. But according to the New Catholic Encyclopedia, the canon of Scripture was not “infallibly” declared until the Council of Trent did so in 1546:

“According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the Biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church (at the Council of Trent). Before that time there was some doubt about the canonicity of certain Biblical books, i.e., about their belonging to the canon.” (The New Catholic Encyclopedia, McGraw Hill, Copyright 1967, Volume 3, “Canon, Biblical”, p. 29)

Likewise, the online “New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia” (Under “Canon of the Old Testament”) says:

“The Tridentine decrees [i.e., from the Council of Trent] from which the above list [of books] is extracted was the first infallible and effectually promulgated pronouncement on the Canon, addressed to the Church Universal.”

So, according to this, the church existed for over 1500 years without an infallibly-pronounced canon. Why is this, if “infallible certainty” is so important?

For more on infallible certainty and the canon, see our article here:

http://answeringcatholicclaims..com/2010/02/canon-and-infallible-certainty.html


Wrong Canon

Point #2 - To make matters worse for Catholics, the canon given by the Councils of Hippo and Carthage does not match the canon which was given by the Council of Trent. This is because the canon of Hippo and Carthage comes from the Septuagint (the Old Testament in Greek – written sometime between 300 B.C. and 100 B.C.), while the Council of Trent specifically mentions using the canon of the Vulgate (Jerome’s Latin translation – written 382-405 A.D.):

“But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema.” (Council of Trent, Fourth Session) [Emphasis added]

The problem is that both canons contain a book called 1 Esdras, but the earlier 1 Esdras is different from the one at the Council of Trent. How do we know this? According to a chart in the New Catholic Encyclopedia, the Septuagint’s 1 Esdras is equivalent to the Vulgate’s 3 Esdras. And it specifically says, “The Council of Trent definitively removed it from the canon.” (New Catholic Encyclopedia (New York: McGraw Hill, 1967, Volume II, Bible, III, pp. 396-397) [Emphasis added]

So, Trent declared 3 Esdras in the Vulgate [1 Esdras of the Septuagint] to be uncanonical (not belonging in the Bible), and it was therefore removed from the canon. So, if this book was “removed” from the canon by Trent, it must have been there in the first place sometime earlier. And that is because it was there from the earlier councils, i.e., Hippo, Carthage, etc. So, by the Catholic Church’s own admission, the earlier canon was different from Trent’s, because it had an extra book. So the idea that Trent accepted and simply reaffirmed the earlier councils’ canon is wrong.

To confirm this with another Catholic source:

“Except for Jerome’s OT from the Hebrew, all other Lat renderings of the OT and NT were made from the Greek.” (The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1999, page 1100)

The irony in all this is that according to the quote from Trent above, rather than affirming, this ecumenical council actually condemns with anathema the Councils of Carthage and Hippo because their canon did not match the Vulgate’s.

So, what if the Catholic says, “Ok, so the Catholic church gave us the Bible (i.e., the correct canon) at Trent instead of Carthage and Hippo, so what?” But, taking 1500 years to recognize the canon is not very reassuring, especially for a Church who insists on the need for infallible certainty. It certainly seems that Catholic “Tradition” failed to protect the early canon from error in this case.

There are a number of church historians / scholars and other sources who also point out this difference between the Septuagint’s canon and the canon of the Vulgate. See the details in this very informative article by William Webster:

http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/sippocanon.html


The Apocrypha

Point #3 – The Protestant Bible contains 66 Books (39 in the Old Testament and 27 in the New). The Bible that the Catholic Church claims to have given us contains 7 more Old Testament books than the Protestant Bible (and some additional verses in the books of Daniel and Esther).

These 7 extra books Catholics call the “Deuterocanonical” books. Protestants usually refer to them as the “Apocrypha,” and they do not consider them to be inspired, but Catholics do. But there are some problems with these books that we will deal with only briefly:


1) These books were not accepted by the Jews, and it was the Jews who knew the canon best because they were the ones who wrote the Old Testament.

2) Some of these books contain historical and geographical errors. Do we really want to accept the “inspiration” of a book which is not even reliable in worldly matters?

3) Some of the books teach doctrines which contradict the rest of the Scriptures.

4) There are a number of people throughout church history who denied the inspiration of the Apocrypha. One is Jerome, the very person who translated the Vulgate Bible (which the Catholic Church embraces). Catholic Cardinal Cajetan, who opposed Martin Luther and his teachings, also believed that the Apocrypha should not be used to confirm matters of faith, but only for edification. We could also mention Pope Gregory the Great, Athanasius (the bishop of Alexandria) and many others who believed that (at least some of) the Apocryphal books were not canonical.


Even the online New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia says concerning the church fathers of the Middle Ages and their attitude toward the Apocrypha:

“Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity.” (Under “Canon of the Old Testament”)

For much more information on the Apocrypha, see the William Webster link that we mentioned above.


Teachings Not Biblical

Point #4 - If the Catholic Church really did give us the Bible, then why do so many of its teachings either contradict the Scriptures, or cannot be found within its pages (e.g., doctrines like confession to a priest, Mary’s sinless birth and life, Mary’s Assumption into Heaven, indulgences, Purgatory, the Treasury of Merit, the office of pope, praying to saints, etc., etc.)? Interestingly, we find none of these in the Bible they claim to have given us.


Used by God

Point #5 - When it comes to spiritual deception the most dangerous lies are the ones that contain a certain amount of truth mixed in. And that is the case here. The “certain amount of truth mixed in” is that the Catholic Church was used, to some extent, in preserving and copying the Bible. But the Catholic Church did not “give us the Bible.” GOD did. It is HIS Word given to His people… the Old Testament given through the Jewish prophets, and the New Testament given through the Apostles and their close associates. The universal church of the New Testament just recognized the inspired Scriptures… it did not create or establish them. It was simply used by God in identifying the canon.

But apparently, some Catholics believe that if God uses someone, then we must submit to them.” But this does not logically or necessarily follow because God can use anybody or anything, good or bad, to accomplish His will. But this only proves that God is sovereign. God has used a whale (Jonah 1:17), a rooster (Matthew 26:74-75), and even a donkey (Numbers 22:22-34) to do His will, but that doesn’t mean that we are to submit to whales, roosters or donkeys, does it?

God can also use evil men to prophesy (John 11:49-52), but are we expected to yield to them? Obviously not. God can even use the devil to accomplish His will (Job 1:6-12; 42:10), but does this mean that we should be obedient to Satan? Again, the point is, just because God has USED a person or group in some way to bring about His will, that doesn’t necessarily mean that we must now submit to them. We should only submit to a person or church whose teachings are biblical.

This same misguided reasoning would also require us to submit to Judaism, the religion of the Jews (including any of its un-Christian traditions), since God used the Jews to write and preserve three-fourths of the Bible which we have today (the Old Testament). After all, it was to the Jews that the oracles of God were first given (Romans 3:2). In light of this, the Jews would have more right to claim to have “given us the Bible” than the Catholic Church has.


So Where Did it Come From?

Many Catholics act as though there was nothing but utter confusion over the canon in the early church and the multitudes were desperate to find someone, an infallible authority, who could “determine” the canon for them. Then the Catholic Church stepped in with their councils and saved the day… or at least that’s what many Catholics would like us to believe. But it was not so.

Ok, so where did we get the Bible from, if it wasn’t from the Catholic Church?

Demanding an answer to questions like “Who gave us the Bible?” is actually misleading. There is no one person or group that is responsible for giving us the Bible. Just as the books of the Old Testament were, little by little, accumulated over the years by God’s people who recognized His Spirit moving in His prophets (and eventually writing it down)… it was the same with the apostles and the New Testament. It was a gradual process with many believers involved over time. And just as the Jews recognized Old Testament Scripture without an infallible authority, it was the same with the early Christians.

Although the councils did help, to a certain extent, to crystallize the canon in the minds of the early Christians, these councils, for the most part, merely affirmed the books that were already widely accepted. They were simply attempting to make it “official.”

Even though there were some doubts concerning a few of the books that would eventually end up in the canon, there was, collectively, a general consensus among Christians on most of the books. Only a few of them were actually disputed.

It is said that virtually the whole New Testament could be reproduced simply from the writings of the Ante-Nicene church fathers (those who lived before the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D.). So, the early church was already familiar with the canon of Scripture at this time.

In all fairness, the Catholic Church (i.e., the Church of Rome) did have a role in preserving and copying the Scriptures, as we mentioned earlier. But this doesn’t mean that “the Bible comes from them.”


Conclusion

The implications of all this are sobering and far-reaching. When Catholics say that the Catholic Church gave us the Bible, they are in effect saying that this Church (along with its “Tradition”) is the final authority, and that we must submit to them. They are implying that the Bible gets its authority from that Church and only they have the authority to properly interpret it. But this is certainly not true. The universal church recognized the inspired writings. However, the Scriptures are not “church-breathed,” but God-breathed (2 Tim. 3:16-17)

Simply recognizing something (the canon) is not the same thing as being responsible for its existence. The Bible no more owes its existence to the Catholic Church than gravity owes its existence to Sir Isaac Newton.

The idea of the Catholic Church giving the Bible to the world is yet another boastful (but empty) claim coming from the Catholic side. One has to wonder… how many of the Catholic Church’s claims need to be exposed as false, before the “lay Catholic” in the pew will see the light? How many exaggerated claims from his leaders must he endure before he breaks free of the Catholic Church’s shackles? Hopefully, very few.

Marian Apparition, Guadalupe, Mexio, 1531, “I am truly your merciful Mother, yours and all the people who live united in this land and of all the other people of different ancestries, my lovers, who love me, those who seek me, those who trust in me. Here I will hear their weeping, their complaints and heal all their sorrows, hardships and sufferings.” (theotokos.org.uk/pages/approved/words/wordguad.html)



Psa_22:26  The meek shall eat and be satisfied: they shall praise the LORD that seek him: your heart shall live for ever.
Psa_53:2  God looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, that did seek God.


blackbriar, those who seek God will live forever
God looks down from Heaven to see who seek Him

mary-satan wants people to seek her




bb, your mary say's she will heal you, but it is God that heals,
satan heals no one.

Mat_13:15  For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

Joh_12:40  He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.

Act_28:27  For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

johnw74:



i haven't seen the whole message, so why don't you put it up
it won't change what she-he said: "I promise salvation to whoever embraces it"

Please do well as to read all the messages of all her vatican approved apparitions

blackbriar:


did you even read the prayers.
how can she say i will save you and then still ask you to pray to Jesus to save you from hell....chai

do you think that saying some thing true (pray to Jesus) makes the lies okay?
that's what satan wants you to believe, and you follow him well.

blackbriar:


Please do well as to read all the messages of all her vatican approved apparitions

ha ha, so that's your reply to your saviour marys unbibical claim: "I promise salvation to whoever embraces it"

blackbriar:


Please do well as to read all the messages of all her vatican approved apparitions

okay bb, i have taken your advice and am searching out and starting to read marys vatican approved apperations


Words spoken by Mary at Fatima


Lucia then asked if they would go to heaven and she was told yes, she and Jacinta would go to heaven, but Francisco would need to say many rosaries first.

^^^ mary said lucia and jacinta would go to Heaven and fraqncisco would need to say more rosarys first

vvv one month later mary said I will take Jacinta and Francisco but lucia must stay

"I will take Jacinta and Francisco shortly; but you will stay here for some time to come. Jesus wants to use you to make Me known and loved. He wishes to establish the devotion to My Immaculate Heart throughout the world. I promise salvation to whoever embraces it; these souls will be dear to God, like flowers put by Me to adorn his throne."

you can see why satan is called the father of lies, and the author of confusion

Joh_8:44  Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

1Co_14:33  For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.


that is just from the few word of mary where she said: "I promise salvation"