cgift:
If anyone thinks that the pope is a christian (or Christ-like), he is mistaken and misinformed. The truth is bitter hence, it will always elicit bile from people with whom it does not go down well with. Yea! thats why it is a forum, state it as they are. What if i even tell you that the pope's seemingly pitiful countenance or stance is only deceitful and not heart-felt? If you know the pope, his office and what he stands for, you will not fall flat for such cheap image-making gesture by the RCC and its leadership. Their middle name is deceit unless they just changed it about an hour ago.

Now, to help you remain consistent. You should also denounce and burn all the bibles you come across. The bible was compiled and approved by Catholic bishops in the year 393 AD at a synod somewhere in North Africa. See ==> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synod_of_Hippo

How come you accept their authority to compile the bible; the suddenly reject their authority. Be consistent. Go and create your own bible, then you will sound credible. Until then, you contradict yourself.

cgift:
You need to seat down with reverend fathers who ran away (not exterminated) from the RCC and hear their claims.

They run away because of failures in their spiritual life. Sit down with them and ask them again. The beloved John Paul II was also a priest - and a globally celebrated one at that.

imhotep:

How come you accept their authority to compile the bible; the suddenly reject their authority. Be consistent. Go and create your own bible, then you will sound credible. Until then, you contradict yourself.

That concept is flawed. Should we reject the US constitution simply because those who wrote it were slave owners?
We can disagree with those who compiled the bible without necessarily disagreeing with the contents of the bible. The bible was not written by catholic bishops but is merely a compilation of historical sources. Many more copies of the bible were found in the late 1940s at the cave of Qumran independent of catholic interference.

4 Him:

That concept is flawed. Should we reject the US constitution simply because those who wrote it were slave owners?

Well, the bible and the US constitution are not comparable.

4 Him:

We can disagree with those who compiled the bible without necessarily disagreeing with the contents of the bible.

Christ did not write any book. If you disagree with the compilers of the bible, you MUST reject the bible they compiled.

4 Him:

The bible was not written by catholic bishops but is merely a compilation of historical sources. Many more copies of the bible were found in the late 1940s at the cave of Qumran independent of catholic interference.

Not written but compiled and approved by the Catholic bishops of 393 AD. There are still many many books flying around but rejected by the Catholic Church. For Protestants to be consistent, they MUST reject the bible of 393 AD and compile their own from scratch.

Otherwise their partial rejection is deeply suspect.

This is how they sound ==> "We accept your authority to compile the bible; but we reject your authority to interpret the bible you compiled".

imhotep:

Well, the bible and the US constitution are not comparable.

i used that as an example, it may not be an exact fit.

imhotep:

Christ did not write any book. If you disagree with the compilers of the bible, you MUST reject the bible they compiled.

They merely compiled the bible into the book form as we know it today. The torah which is essentially the old testament had been in existence long before the catholics came on the scene. Why shld i reject the letters of Paul, James, Jude, Matthew, Mark . . . because a person of questionable spiritual character managed to put their works together in one volume?

imhotep:

Not written but compiled and approved by the Catholic bishops of 393 AD. There are still many many books flying around but rejected by the Catholic Church. For Protestants to be consistent, they MUST reject the bible of 393 AD and compile their own from scratch.

If we choose to compile ours from scratch it would still be the very same books of the bible.

imhotep:

Otherwise there partial rejection is deeply suspect.

Rejection of catholic doctrine is BASED ENTIRELY ON ITS DEVIATION FROM THE VERY SAME BOOK IT PURPORTS TO LAY CLAIM TO!

imhotep:

This is how they sound ==> "We accept your authority to compile the bible; but we reject your authority to interpret the bible you compiled".

This makes very little sense no matter how you look at it.
1. We did not delegate any authority to the catholic church to compile the bible for us.
2. The bible is clear that only the Holy Spirit and not a religious organisation has the authority to interprete the bible to us.
3. All scripture is written by the inspiration of God (not the pope).

4 Him:

i used that as an example, it may not be an exact fit.

ok.

4 Him:

They merely compiled the bible into the book form as we know it today. The torah which is essentially the old testament had been in existence long before the catholics came on the scene. Why shld i reject the letters of Paul, James, Jude, Matthew, Mark . . . because a person of questionable spiritual character managed to put their works together in one volume?

This is the contradiction => Why should a person of questionable spiritual character compile and approve a book that you base your entire faith on? Something is wrong there!

4 Him:

If we choose to compile ours from scratch it would still be the very same books of the bible.

This is a dogmatic statement. Its hard to imagine the 33,000 bickering protestant sects come together - talkless of agreeing on the books of a 'new' bible.

4 Him:

Rejection of catholic doctrine is BASED ENTIRELY ON ITS DEVIATION FROM THE VERY SAME BOOK IT PURPORTS TO LAY CLAIM TO!

Correction. Rejection is based on a poor knowledge of the doctrines themselves.

4Him:
This makes very little sense no matter how you look at it.
1. We did not delegate any authority to the catholic church to compile the bible for us.

But you silently and implicitly accepted the bible whose authenticity is based on their authority as Bishops.

4Him:
2. The bible is clear that only the Holy Spirit and not a religious organisation has the authority to interprete the bible to us.
3. All scripture is written by the inspiration of God (not the pope).

Bishops (men of flesh and blood) compiled the bible, and approved it, and rejected MANY MANY other books as non-canonical.

imhotep:

This is the contradiction => Why should a person of questionable spiritual character compile and approve a book that you base your entire faith on? Something is wrong there!

Nothing is wrong actually. Those books do not belong to the catholic faith but to the body of Christ. They were written to specific churches by specific and identified men of God inspired by the Holy Spirit. That the catholic church as a body then chose to put these letters together does not automatically give them authority over those books.
In that case should the Jews claim authority over the old testament? Should they not be the ones charged with interpreting the books of the law to us?

imhotep:

This is a dogmatic statement. Its hard to imagine the 33,000 bickering protestant sects come together - talkless of agreeing on the books of a 'new' bible.

should we then bow down to the pope for helping us put together the works of Paul, Peter, James and John?

imhotep:

Correction. Rejection is based on a poor knowledge of the doctrines themselves.

Not really, pls find me a good bible reference for vicarius filli dei.

imhotep:

But you silently and implicitly accepted the bible whose authenticity is based on their authority as Bishops.

If they had left it just like the scrolls found at the caves of qumran we would still have the same bible to read perhaps not in the sequence we have it today.

imhotep:

Bishops (men of flesh and blood) compiled the bible, and approved it, and rejected MANY MANY other books as non-canonical.

Note: they compiled it but did not write it. The ultimate authority for the bible rests with the mighty men who penned those very words and to Christ who inspired them not to ur bishops who dont even read the bible anymore.
The rejected works they regarded as "non-canonical" are still subject to dispute today, i've read the book of enoch and it dovetails perfectly with the book of Jude.

4 Him:

Nothing is wrong actually. Those books do not belong to the catholic faith but to the body of Christ.

How do you know? There are still many books flying around since 393 AD. Protestants should sample them and see whether the sinful Catholic bishops left some divine revelations out!!

4 Him:

They were written to specific churches by specific and identified men of God inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Then how come the Holy Spirit allowed evil Bishops to compile and approve these scattered books

4 Him:

That the catholic church as a body then chose to put these letters together does not automatically give them authority over those books.

The books stand on the authority of the Catholic Church. If you reject the RCC, you MUST reject these books; or risk looking suspicious.

4 Him:

In that case should the Jews claim authority over the old testament? Should they not be the ones charged with interpreting the books of the law to us?

Yes, a good part of the OT stands on the authority of the Jews. There were (are) the people of God.

4 Him:

should we then bow down to the pope for helping us put together the works of Paul, Peter, James and John?

Reject the Pope, reject the bible that stands on his authority. And go and compile your own.

4 Him:

Not really, please find me a good bible reference for vicarius filli dei.

First, find out what the word 'vicar' means. Secondly, interpret this for me ==>

John 21: 15-17 ------------->
Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs."

A second time he said to him, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep."

He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, "Do you love me?" And he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep."

That is not true. What Christ meant by ALL men will hate you BECAUSE OF ME was that the authorities, those who claim to be the custodians of the law and religion would rise up against His true believers

Actually it can be. Those of you who ahave charged yourselves to be the custiodians of law and religion have risen up against the Catholics. Dude you're doing it right now.

4 Him:

If they had left it just like the scrolls found at the caves of qumran we would still have the same bible to read perhaps not in the sequence we have it today.

But they did not leave it. You are now obliged to reject the bible and remain consistent with your rejection of the Catholic Church. Go and sort out your own bible.

4 Him:

Note: they compiled it but did not write it. The ultimate authority for the bible rests with the mighty men who penned those very words and to Christ who inspired them not to your bishops who don't even read the bible anymore.

They penned the books; but left them flying around - together with so many 'fake' books. How come the evil Bishops were able to discern the books you now hold to be inspired??

4 Him:

The rejected works they regarded as "non-canonical" are still subject to dispute today, i've read the book of enoch and it dovetails perfectly with the book of Jude.

Good. You are on the right track now. Drop the bible you are carrying; compile your own and let us see.

imhotep:

Do you ask out of a genuine desire to know? Or is it due to self-doubt and insecurity?

I've seen all your talk about the 'other 33,000 sects' being insecure and blah blah. But why on earth would you even think that I'm asking out of

self-doubt and insecurity

??

P.S. You still have not answered my question. As far as yours is concerned, the answer is a big captital NO.

A_K_O:

I've seen all your talk about the 'other 33,000 sects' being insecure and blah blah. But why on earth would you even think that I'm asking out of??

P.S. You still have not answered my question. As far as yours is concerned, the answer is a big captital NO.

Good.
Now, let me attempt to answer your question. I'd like you to follow my last few posts (in conversation with 4Him) about the origins of the bible.

Imhotep, i will prefer to select areas i think are worth pursuing, arguing about whether i shld bow to ur bishops for compiling the inspired writings of others they dont even follow is shallow.

First, find out what the word 'vicar' means. Secondly, interpret this for me ==>

John 21: 15-17   ------------->
Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs."

A second time he said to him, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep."

He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, "Do you love me?" And he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep."

If that is your basis for the entire sham that is the catholic doctrine then pls help me identify these "popes" being refered to here:

Ezekiel 34:1 And the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, 2 Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel, prophesy, and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD unto the shepherds; Woe be to the shepherds of Israel that do feed themselves! should not the shepherds feed the flocks? 3 Ye eat the fat, and ye clothe you with the wool, ye kill them that are fed: but ye feed not the flock.

Perhaps you have missed some jewish popes.

4Him:
Imhotep, i will prefer to select areas i think are worth pursuing, arguing about whether i shld bow to your bishops for compiling the inspired writings of others they don't even follow is shallow.

But you are yet to address the issue.
=> How come evil catholic bishops compiled and addressed the books that protestants base their ENTIRE faith on
=> How come the Holy Spirit allowed the holy protestants to base their whole faith on a book compiled and approved by evil men

4Him:
If that is your basis for the entire sham that is the catholic doctrine then please help me identify these "popes" being refered to here:

Ezekiel 34:1 And the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, 2 Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel, prophesy, and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD unto the shepherds; Woe be to the shepherds of Israel that do feed themselves! should not the shepherds feed the flocks? 3 Ye eat the fat, and ye clothe you with the wool, ye kill them that are fed: but ye feed not the flock.
Perhaps you have missed some jewish popes.

God was addressing the Jewish leadership/priesthood here. You are mixing issues up. And you are yet to interpret John 21: 15-17

imhotep:

But you are yet to address the issue.
=> How come evil catholic bishops compiled and addressed the books that protestants base their ENTIRE faith on
=> How come the Holy Spirit allowed the holy protestants to base their whole faith on a book compiled and approved by evil men

You're conflating issues here imhotep. Atheists have been the ones at the forefront of biblical archeology in Israel, should we disregard their findings as untrue? The scrolls found in the qumran cave were found by a mooslim boy . . . should we have thrown away the scrolls?
If God could speak to Balaam through an ASS why do you think it impossible that he could use faithless men to compile historical documents that make up the bible today?

The key issue is WHO WROTE those words that make up the bible? Certainly not the catholic bishops.

imhotep:

God was addressing the Jewish leadership/priesthood here. You are mixing issues up.

Why then is the address to Peter any different? Infact apostles Paul did more feeding of the flock than Peter, why is Paul not regarded as a pope?

imhotep:

God was addressing the Jewish leadership/priesthood here. You are mixing issues up. And you are yet to interpret John 21: 15-17

You gave the answer in your own flippant "interpretation" of Ezekiel 34.

Besides mr imhotep . . . why did NOT ONE SINGLE apostle defer to Peter after Christ's statement in John 21?
Why didnt the other apostles appoint Peter into the seat of the chiefest apostle? Why did that title go to Paul who was still busy slaughtering believers?

Pls show me any other passage in the bible where the apostles made reference to John 21 in making their apostolic decisions.

4 Him:

You're conflating issues here imhotep. Atheists have been the ones at the forefront of biblical archeology in Israel, should we disregard their findings as untrue? The scrolls found in the qumran cave were found by a mooslim boy . . . should we have thrown away the scrolls?
If God could speak to Balaam through an ASS why do you think it impossible that he could use faithless men to compile historical documents that make up the bible today?

How do you know God was with these evil Bishops? You were not there. It is safer for you to reject them and the book they compiled and approved.

4 Him:

The key issue is WHO WROTE those words that make up the bible? Certainly not the catholic bishops.

But the evil Catholics bishops effectively said ==> 'This book is inspired'. And YOU believed!!!!!!!! Why??

4 Him:

Why then is the address to Peter any different? Infact apostles Paul did more feeding of the flock than Peter, why is Paul not regarded as a pope?

Good. This is why you should reject the catholic bible and quickly compile and approve your own.

I really don't feel like interfering with imhotep and 4Him's dialogue but I feel the need to point something out to inhotep:

Christ  did not write any book. If you disagree with the compilers of the bible, you MUST reject the bible they compiled.

Compiling is different from writing. It's like equating  a proof-reader with an author. And you should also remember that the bible is ultimately the WORD OF GOD. It's obvious that that phrase has become a cliche for many. God decided what wuld and what would not be in the bible so even if the 'protestants' did it, it would be the same bible. I totally reject the idea of crediting the catholic church for compiling the bible.

imhotep:

How do you know God was with these evil Bishops? You were not there. It is safer for you to reject them and the book they compiled and approved.

you're simply walking around in circles and saying nothing. I never said God was with the bishops but with the apostles who penned the very words you now pretend to lay claim to.
Was God also with Balaam's ass?

imhotep:

But the evil Catholics bishops effectively said ==> 'This book is inspired'. And YOU believed!!!!!!!! Why??

Paul said so in the book of Timothy . . . i doubt if u even read that portion.

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:

imhotep:

Good. This is why you should reject the catholic bible and quickly compile and approve your own.

Including the Torah too? Since when did the catholic church become sole copyright holders of the books of the apostles?

lol I would really like some people to read the Acts of the Apostles and come back and tell me what happened in chapter 6:1-7
Why it is that Peter was the LEADER among the apostles?
Why it is that Paul had to send for Peter and plead a case before Peter as why the gentiles did not need to be circumsised if every man could clearly get it done for temsleves? Why is it that Peter had to make the decree? I mean really Why?
Clearly if a leader is not needed then Christ wouldn't have appointed one. Right?


I don't want to hear the rubbish of Christ not appointing the apostles to do that which he did on this earth such as healing, casting out of demons, forgiving, etc. Because he did. When he said "as my Father sent me, so I send you." Basically as Christ did, so are we to do. But he made sure that not just every Tom, Dick, and Emeka can lay hands on his sheep, so he instituted the apostolic succession by make Peter (rock) the first LEADER of the Church.

Paul said so in the book of Timothy . . . i doubt if u even read that portion

But what if they said that the book of Timothy was fake and refused to include it in the Bible, would you then include it?
Shouldn't that mean that you should go looking for the Real books?

It took these evil and bound for hell Catholci Bishops to say that this book is truly an inspiration from God.
I'm sure other books were included that made that claim, how come the book of Timothy was selected, why weren't the other ones that made the same claim were not selected?
For those of you who say that it's just a personal relationship with God, clearly missed the part about CUMMUNNAL LIFE in Acts 2:42-47. These people lived to serve God and one another. It wasn't I'm going to get my own salvation and have my own personal relationship with God (which is needed) but they knew that they had to commune with one another (which is the coming together at the church). So if it wasn't meant to be organised as you claim why did they do it?

4 Him:

you're simply walking around in circles and saying nothing. I never said God was with the bishops but with the apostles who penned the very words you now pretend to lay claim to.
Was God also with Balaam's ass?

And you are being inconsistent. If you reject the evil bishops, you should reject their works and compile your own. To insinuate the God may have inspired them is a cheap escape route. For you were not there with them.


[

4 Him:

Paul said so in the book of Timothy . . . i doubt if u even read that portion.

That book of Timothy is very very interesting. Check this out ==>

The bible was compiled and approved about 320 years after Paul wrote this to letter Timothy. So, which scripture was Paul referring to??

Obviously here, and in most references to "the Scriptures" that we find in the New Testament, Paul is speaking of the Old Testament; so if this passage is going to be used to set the limits on inspired authority, then the entire New Testament will be excluded!!!

4 Him:

Including the Torah too? Since when did the catholic church become sole copyright holders of the books of the apostles?

The catholic church is an evil church. Reject the books they compiled. Compile your own, from the MYRIAD of books flying around. Be consistent.

4Him:
Why then is the address to Peter any different? Infact apostles Paul did more feeding of the flock than Peter, why is Paul not regarded as a pope?

Are you now trivializing the words of Jesus? Are His words suddenly meaningless because you do not like their implications?

Please show me any other passage in the bible where the apostles made reference to John 21 in making their apostolic decisions

I believe you're looking for Acts 6: 1-7, most especially 3-6

3 Brothers, select from among you seven reputale men, filled witht he spirit and wisdom, whom we shal appoint to this task
4 whereas we shall devot ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word
5 The proposal was acceptable to the whole community, so they chose, Stephen, a man filled with faith and the holy spirit, also Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmena, and Nicholas of Antioch, a convert to Judaism.
6 They presented these men to the apostles who prayed and laid hands on them

A_K_O:
Compiling is different from writing. It's like equating a proof-reader with an author. And you should also remember that the bible is ultimately the WORD OF GOD. It's obvious that that phrase has become a cliche for many. God decided what wuld and what would not be in the bible so even if the 'protestants' did it, it would be the same bible. I totally reject the idea of crediting the catholic church for compiling the bible.

But the bishops that compiled the bible are supposed to be evil men. Why accept the works of evil men

Why not you (the good man) go and compile/approve your own bible.

That book of Timothy is very very interesting.  Check this out ==>

The bible was compiled  and approved about 320 years after Paul wrote this to letter Timothy. So, which scripture was Paul referring to??

Obviously here, and in most references to "the Scriptures" that we find in the New Testament, Paul is speaking of the Old Testament; so if this passage is going to be used to set the limits on inspired authority, then the entire New Testament will be excluded!!!

I have had an argument with you on this issue before. You were correct when you said that wherever the word 'scripture' is used in the New Testament, it refers to the Old Testament. I researched and found out that the word 'scripture' in the New Testament means is 'Graphe in greek meaning: holy Writ. This word is mostly used to refer to a prophesy or statement made in the Old Testament, which was then the Scrolls.

However, I have received divine understanding on this issue. If the 'scriptures' in the Old Testament were authentic, their authenticity being proved in their fulfillment in the New Testament (e.g the prophesy of the birth of Jesus in the OT), why would God make the New testament less authentic? There is no answer because this is not so. If we are to look at it your way, it brings everything in the New Testament under question as being the word of God and inspired by God as we find in Galatians.

Why then does the passage in galatians seemingly exclude the New Testament. the answer is very very simple. At the time, there was no New Testament to refer to. It was still being written and lived out. Paul was 'innocently' writing letters to the several churches he had spiritual leadership over. He knew that the words came from God, but didnt think they would later become as respectable as the scrolls. In short, he had no that there was going to be a New Testament because he was simply living his life. That's why he (and all others in the NT) used 'scripture' referring to the OT, because
1. That was all they had as the word of God.
2. They did not have any NT on scrolls to refer to.
3. They themselves were living out the New Testament, all of whom (except Jesus) were unaware that their lives would be a part of the bible.

~Lady~:

lol I would really like some people to read the Acts of the Apostles and come back and tell me what happened in chapter 6:1-7

Did you even read it yourself? Now look at verse 1 of that chapter . . .
Acts 6:1 And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration.

Note that Christ appointed only 12 apostles, but on the day of Pentecost alone the number of new converts grew to over 3000. The number of converts had grown much too large for only 12 men to handle, in order to make the preaching of the gospel more effective they laid hands and ordained (verse 2) to cope with the obviously larger need to teach the gospel to the nooks and crannies of Israel.

~Lady~:

Why it is that Peter was the LEADER among the apostles?

Where is that expressely stated in Acts 6: 1-7? Who made him the leader of the apostles?

~Lady~:

Why it is that Paul had to send for Peter and plead a case before Peter as why the gentiles did not need to be circumsised if every man could clearly get it done for temsleves? Why is it that Peter had to make the decree? I mean really Why?

You're reading that passage upside down . . .Gal 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

Is that the sign of a man "pleading a case"?

~Lady~:

Clearly if a leader is not needed then Christ wouldn't have appointed one. Right?

Where did Christ appoint one? And pls dont go running to John 21 because its clear you people dont understand what it means beyond the lies you've been force-fed.

~Lady~:

I don't want to hear the rubbish of Christ not appointing the apostles to do that which he did on this earth such as healing, casting out of demons, forgiving, etc. Because he did.

Everyone that believes on the name of Jesus Christ has also been given that power . . . read John 1. Even Judas Iscariot could cast out demons.

~Lady~:

But he made sure that not just every Tom, Dick, and Emeka can lay hands on his sheep, so he instituted the apostolic succession by make Peter (rock) the first LEADER of the Church.

That is a lie. No where is this supported in the bible. Timothy could lay hands on the sick, Paul, Phillip, James even Stephen saw heaven before his death . . .

~Lady~:

But what if they said that the book of Timothy was fake and refused to include it in the Bible, would you then include it?

That is why God is God . . . when He wants something done it will be done even if He has to use an ass or 4 lepers to bring it to pass.

~Lady~:

It took these evil and bound for hell Catholci Bishops to say that this book is truly an inspiration from God.

Paul said so in 2 Timothy 3: 16.

~Lady~:

I believe you're looking for Acts 6: 1-7, most especially 3-6

3 Brothers, select from among you seven reputale men, filled witht he spirit and wisdom, whom we shal appoint to this task
4 whereas we shall devot ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word
5 The proposal was acceptable to the whole community, so they chose, Stephen, a man filled with faith and the holy spirit, also Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmena, and Nicholas of Antioch, a convert to Judaism.
6 They presented these men to the apostles who prayed and laid hands on them

how does this show us that Peter was appointed the chief apostle?

4 Him:

how does this show us that Peter was appointed the chief apostle?

1. Peter was among 'the apostles'.
2. These young men were not self-appointed. As we observe in many of todays 'churches'.

imhotep:

And you are being inconsistent. If you reject the evil bishops, you should reject their works and compile your own. To insinuate the God may have inspired them is a cheap escape route. For you were not there with them.

Do you have anything else to say besides these tired old cliche?

imhotep:

The catholic church is an evil church. Reject the books they compiled. Compile your own, from the MYRIAD of books flying around. Be consistent.

Repeated again? Well you also should reject the books they compiled because a mooslim found them in the cave of qumran.
This is essentially a silly argument whose bottom drops out as soon as u probe a little deeper.
If the catholic church WROTE those very books then you have grounds to tell us to reject them . . . the books of the bible were written primarily by jewish men . . . if anyone shld be in a position to tell us to claim copyright it is their descendants and not usurpers who just came along and put together documents written hundreds of yrs before they were born.

The ignorance in this thread is appalling. Even a child can see that Cgift and 4Him are only driven by hatrad. With every post, 4Him exposes ignorance. I cant believe that somebody in this day and age can be that ignorant.

Earlier in this thread, I made mention of the fact that the Bible was collected and complied by the Catholics. Can you believe that 4Him's reply was: "King James was not a Catholic.
Please what has King James who addicted an already existing Bible, got to do whit the collection and compilation of the Bible. The guy is terribly ignorant thats why I chose not to address him any more.

@imhotep
I agree with you in many things. One thing is certain, you know you're history. Your analogy about the protestants rejecting Catholicism yet accepting the Bible is flawless.  The Bible primarily remains a book of the catholics.

I am not a catholic but I am against injustice of any kind. Let the Truth be said: Protestants are not better than Catholics.