dalaman:

The bible as we know today it today was put together through the votes of the catholic bishops about 300 years after the death of Jesus. The bible as we know it was put together by the catholic bishops and without them and what they did we would have no bible, They also choose the names to give to the gospels(apostolic traditions). Go study a little history.

@dalaman,
Bros, Catholics did not write the Bible - so all this idea that without the Catholic Bishops we would have no Bible is a bit too presumptuous.

It is said that a picture speaks more than a thousand words, so I leave you with these pictures that tell the whole story.

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0040/0040_01.asp

tpiah:

Jagunlabi, are you saying the Jewish Torah was written by the Catholic church?

from idolatry to defining who wrote the bible- all in one day.





Can you people do your homework before logging on the web.

You've never heard of the Greek Orthodox church?

The Ethiopian Church? The Egyptian Coptic church? The Armenian church?

Better go and study the history of the church ,the ethiopian egyptian and armenian churches were part of the catholic church until the council of chalcedon in 451AD ,it was after that council that they left the church.
The Greek orthodox church with the other eastern orthodox churches left in 1054AD.

PENTECOSTALS CLAIM THAT CATHOLICS ARE SO DEVOTED TO MARY,BUT THEY THEMSELVES ARE SO DEVOTED TO MONEY ,THEY ALMOST WORSHIP MONEY AND THEIR PASTORS.

LET ME SAY HERE THAT THE CATHOLICS ARE NOT AS DEVOTED TO MARY AS THE PENTECOSTALS ARE TO MONEY AND THEIR PASTORS.

THEY ONLY THING THEY KNOW HOW TO DO IS TITHES,SEED SOWING ,FIRST FRUITS E.T.C

FOR MORE ON THE HISTORY OF THE CHURCHES OF ETHIOPIA,ARMENIA AND EGYPT .SEE THE LINK BELOW
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oriental_Orthodoxy

faith69:

PENTECOSTALS CLAIM THAT CATHOLICS ARE SO DEVOTED TO MARY,BUT THEY THEMSELVES ARE SO DEVOTED TO MONEY ,THEY ALMOST WORSHIP MONEY AND THEIR PASTORS.

LET ME SAY HERE THAT THE CATHOLICS ARE NOT AS DEVOTED TO MARY AS THE PENTECOSTALS ARE TO MONEY AND THEIR PASTORS.

THEY ONLY THING THEY KNOW HOW TO DO IS TITHES,SEED SOWING ,FIRST FRUITS E.T.C

And so goes the saying:

"When a shoe is thrown at a pack of dogs the one that got hit is the one that yelps".

Could that saying or adage be true about you?  Did you have to use the uppercase characters to type your message across?  Or was it that the bitter truth struck a nerve that brought you out of your hibernation?(Since this was your first few posts).

The fact that "Pentecostals" are devoted to "money and their pastors" notwithstanding, does that justify your devotion to Mary?  Does two wrongs make a right?

If I were you I would objectively carry out my own independent research devoid of any sentiments and previous biases.

faith69:

FOR MORE ON THE HISTORY OF THE CHURCHES OF ETHIOPIA,ARMENIA AND EGYPT .SEE THE LINK BELOW
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oriental_Orthodoxy

A better place to start will be to find out what the origin of the RCC was and then compare it to what you find in the early church. If you are really interested in studying for historical facts then the link below will be a good starting point.

http://www.gotquestions.org/origin-Catholic-church.html

faith69:

Better go and study the history of the church ,the ethiopian egyptian and armenian churches were part of the catholic church until the council of chalcedon in 451AD ,it was after that council that they left the church.
The Greek orthodox church with the other eastern orthodox churches left in 1054AD.

stop confusing yourself.

I dont want to get bogged down in tautology and dogma because if we start analyzing all these churches this thread will derail and most people will lose sight of whatever's being discussed.


Here's just one church not on your list:

Chaldean Syrian Church


Chaldean Syrian Church is the name used for the Assyrian Church of the East in India. It is one of several groups of Saint Thomas Christians tracing their origins to St. Thomas the Apostle who, according to tradition, came to India in [size=14pt]AD 52.[/size]

This Nasrani faith had many similarities to Judaism, and, owing to the heritage of the Nasrani people, developed contacts with the non-Chalcedonian religious authorities of Edessa, Mesopotamia.

The local church maintained its autonomous character under its local leader. When the Portuguese established themselves in India in the 16th Century, they found the Church in Kerala as an administratively independent community. Following the arrival of Vasco de Gama in 1498, the Portuguese came to South India and established their political power there. They brought missionaries to carry out evangelistic work in order to establish churches in communion with Rome under the Portuguese patronage. [b]These missionaries were eager to bring the Indian Church under the Pope's control.  They succeeded in their efforts in 1599 with the `Synod of Diamper'.[/b]The representatives of various parishes who attended the assembly were forced by Portuguese authorities to accept the Papal authority.


Following the Portuguese colonization of several coastal regions of India, Christians in Malabar were allied with the Roman Catholic Church. Beginning in the 17th century, ecclesiastically conservative groups began to seek leadership from the Syrian Orthodox Church.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaldean_Syrian_Church

The Fall of Jerusalem was 70 AD.

@tpiah

Better go and study the history of the church ,the ethiopian egyptian and armenian churches were part of the catholic church until the council of chalcedon in 451AD ,it was after that council that they left the church.
The Greek orthodox church with the other eastern orthodox churches left in 1054AD.

stop confusing yourself.

I dont want to get bogged down in tautology and dogma because if we start analyzing all these churches this thread will derail and most people will lose sight of whatever's being discussed.


Here's just one church not on your list:

Chaldean Syrian Church


Chaldean Syrian Church is the name used for the Assyrian Church of the East in India. It is one of several groups of Saint Thomas Christians tracing their origins to St. Thomas the Apostle who, according to tradition, came to India in AD 52.

This Nasrani faith had many similarities to Judaism, and, owing to the heritage of the Nasrani people, developed contacts with the non-Chalcedonian religious authorities of Edessa, Mesopotamia.

The local church maintained its autonomous character under its local leader. When the Portuguese established themselves in India in the 16th Century, they found the Church in Kerala as an administratively independent community. Following the arrival of Vasco de Gama in 1498, the Portuguese came to South India and established their political power there. They brought missionaries to carry out evangelistic work in order to establish churches in communion with Rome under the Portuguese patronage. These missionaries were eager to bring the Indian Church under the Pope's control.  They succeeded in their efforts in 1599 with the `Synod of Diamper'.The representatives of various parishes who attended the assembly were forced by Portuguese authorities to accept the Papal authority.


Following the Portuguese colonization of several coastal regions of India, Christians in Malabar were allied with the Roman Catholic Church. Beginning in the 17th century, ecclesiastically conservative groups began to seek leadership from the Syrian Orthodox Church.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaldean_Syrian_Church

His points still stands. . . .the Ethiopian, Coptic, and Armenian churches were all at one point part of the Catholic Church.  What is more telling than even this is that the beliefs/dogmas/doctrines of all of the apostolic churches (including the above Chaldean Syriach Church) are pretty much the same.  The main thing that separates us is unity with the pope.  They believe in, 'the real presense of Christ in the Eucharist', 'the sacrements', 'prayer to the saints', 'apostolic succession', and understand and accept what is meant by the title, 'Mary mother of God (theotikos), etc. 

Although we (all of the apostolic churches) may not all be in communion with the Pope of Rome, our beliefs and way of worship are essentially the same.  These churches did not pick of the Bible yesterday and foolishly believe and proclaim that it came down whole and intact from heaven; the way these 'born again' churches do.  They know the history of the Bible and how it came to be.

Omenuko:

@tpiah


His points still stands. . . .the Ethiopian, Coptic, and Armenian churches were all at one point part of the Catholic Church.  What is more telling than even this is that the beliefs/dogmas/doctrines of all of the apostolic churches (including the above Chaldean Syriach Church) are pretty much the same.  The main thing that separates us is unity with the pope.  They believe in, 'the real presense of Christ in the Eucharist', 'the sacrements', 'prayer to the saints', 'apostolic succession', and understand and accept what is meant by the title, 'Mary mother of God (theotikos), etc. 

Although we (all of the apostolic churches) may not all be in communion with the Pope of Rome, our beliefs and way of worship are essentially the same.  These churches did not pick of the Bible yesterday and foolishly believe and proclaim that it came down whole and intact from heaven; the way these 'born again' churches do.  They know the history of the Bible and how it came to be.     

as I said before, the churches in my post he quoted, were [b]example[/b]s and not meant to serve as a comprehensive list.

Kindly note that. There are many more and no, not every church was at one time or another affiliated with a mother church somewhere.

learn to acknowledge this without feeling hurt.

tpiah:


as I said before, the churches in my post he quoted, were [b]example[/b]s and not meant to serve as a comprehensive list.

Kindly note that. There are many more and no, not every church was at one time or another affiliated with a mother church somewhere.

learn to acknowledge this without feeling hurt.

I should learn to acknowledge what, without feeling hurt?

Your response to faith69's post was inaccurate and misleading.  Did faith69 say all of the "Christian sects" (orthodox and heretic) were part of the Catholic Church?  No. . .what he posted was that the churches that you presented were all once part of the Catholic Church.

The person who created this thread said, "Don't let the Catholic Faith Deter You From the Christian Faith."  What the originator fails to understand is that the Christian faith is the Catholic Faith.  The Catholic Church is the original church.  The term 'Catholic' was the term the members of the early church used to distinguish between orthodox belief and heretical doctrine from pseudo-christian sects.  What the poster fails to understand is that the Catholic Church included all of the apostolic churches, such as the Roman/Latin, Russian, Greek, Coptic, Ethiopian, Syrian, Indian, etc.  And those orthodox churches that were not initially part of this Catholic Church had their leaders (aka Bishops) appointed by Catholics.  What the poster fails to understand is that the very Bible that he/she uses to better know and grow closer to God was assembled, compiled, and protected by bishops and priests of the Catholic Church.

So if you think about. . . .when Catholics hear things such as what the originator of this thread claims, it goes to show how ignorant and hypocritical many people are.  Talk less of being, anti-catholic.  How foolish can one be to believe that the originators of their Bible (the Bible was compiled some 300 years after the death of Christ) are not Christian?  Now, if the originator of this thread stated the reasons why Catholics are not Christians then he must prove it.  Nothing wrong with a healthy discussion.

Omenuko:

The person who created this thread said, "Don't let the Catholic Faith Deter You From the Christian Faith."  What the originator fails to understand is that the Christian faith is the Catholic Faith.  The Catholic Church is the original church.  The term 'Catholic' was the term the members of the early church used to distinguish between orthodox belief and heretical doctrine from pseudo-christian sects   

Find out the origin of the Roman Catholic Church in the link below:

The origin of the Catholic Church is the tragic compromise of Christianity with the pagan religions that surrounded it.  Instead of proclaiming the Gospel and converting the pagans, the Catholic Church “Christianized” the pagan religions, and “paganized” Christianity.  By blurring the differences and erasing the distinctions, yes, the Catholic Church made itself attractive to the people of the Roman empire.  One result was the Catholic Church becoming the supreme religion in the “Roman world” for centuries. However, another result was the most dominant form of Christianity apostatizing from the true Gospel of Jesus Christ and the true proclamation of God’s Word.

2 Timothy 4:3-4 declares, “For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.”

http://www.gotquestions.org/origin-Catholic-church.html

And if you want to know about who or what the original church is then read the link below.

The ability to trace one's church back to the “first church” through apostolic succession is an argument used by a number of different churches to assert that their church is the “one true church.”  The Roman Catholic Church makes this claim.  The Greek Orthodox Church makes this claim.  Some Protestant denominations make this claim.  Some of the “Christian” cults make this claim.  How do we know which church is correct?  The biblical answer is – it does not matter!  To know what it means to be a Christian and what the first and original church is click on the link suggested below for more details.

http://www.gotquestions.org/original-church.html

Any diligent and sincere theological study will come to the right conclusion that the "Christian faith" is not synonymous with the "Catholic faith"

Hallo omenuko,

Omenuko:

I should learn to acknowledge what, without feeling hurt?

Your response to faith69's post was inaccurate and misleading. Did faith69 say all of the "Christian sects" (orthodox and heretic) were part of the Catholic Church? No. . .what he posted was that the churches that you presented were all once part of the Catholic Church.

I understand how you feel and have been watching this thread grow. I hope my contributions and observations will not make things worse towards your feelings; but there's reason to believe that faith69 was not correct about that idea. There's more we can share about this - and this has been done sometime in 2007; but point still remains that faith69 was wrong.

Cheers.

pilgrim.1:

Hallo omenuko,

I understand how you feel and have been watching this thread grow. I hope my contributions and observations will not make things worse towards your feelings; but there's reason to believe that faith69 was not correct about that idea. There's more we can share about this - and this has been done sometime in 2007; but point still remains that faith69 was wrong.

Cheers.

What tpiah posted is below:

Can you people do your homework before logging on the web.

You've never heard of the Greek Orthodox church? Huh

The Ethiopian Church? The Egyptian Coptic church? The Armenian church?

In response, faith69 posted:

Better go and study the history of the church ,the Ethiopian Egyptian and Armenian churches were part of the catholic church until the council of chalcedon in 451AD ,it was after that council that they left the church.
The Greek orthodox church with the other eastern orthodox churches left in 1054AD.

Please, explain how faith69 is wrong in this regard?  My understanding is that the Armenian, Egyptian/Coptic and Ethiopian Churches are called non-chalcedonians (Oriental Orthodox) and were separated from the Greek and Latin churches around 451AD.  Afterward, the Greek (Eastern Orthodox) and Roman/Latin churches separated around 1054AD (although it was not a hard split). All churches were at one point part of the Catholic Church.

Omenuko:

All churches were at one point part of the Catholic Church.

That is precisely the problem. From all points considered, it does not follow that all churches were at any point "part of" the Catholic Church. If we revisit Church history, we find that some churches indeed grew almost indepently apart from the Catholic Church; and it was only when they convened to deliberate on doctrines that the schisms occured. Many people interprete these schisms as people leaving the Catholic Church to become other churches - that is not honest by any means.

I just thought to make the basics plain without yet pointing to specific examples, since it's not my desire for people to grow ill-feelings either ways. But yes, I'd be glad to offer examples where requested. Cheers.

pilgrim.1:

@dalaman,
Bros, Catholics did not write the Bible - so all this idea that without the Catholic Bishops we would have no Bible is a bit too presumptuous.

This wasn't for me but let me jump in here, Of course catholic did not write the bible but they MADE the bible. The bible(compilation of accepted christian scriptures) was a sole idea of the catholic church.

pilgrim.1:

That is precisely the problem. From all points considered, it does not follow that all churches were at any point "part of" the Catholic Church. If we revisit Church history, we find that some churches indeed grew almost indepently apart from the Catholic Church; and it was only when they convened to deliberate on doctrines that the schisms occured. Many people interprete these schisms as people leaving the Catholic Church to become other churches - that is not honest by any means.

I just thought to make the basics plain without yet pointing to specific examples, since it's not my desire for people to grow ill-feelings either ways. But yes, I'd be glad to offer examples where requested. Cheers.

Sorry, I wasn't clear enough.  All of the churches I mentioned in my post (Armenian, Egyptian, Greek, and Ethiopian) were at one point or another part of the Catholic Church. I do agree with you that there were some churches (though quite small in number) that developed apart from the 'Catholic Church'.  As that may be the case, they practiced a faith that is very similar to that of the sister churches within the Catholic Church (e.g., Latin, Greek, Ethiopian, Syrian, etc.) and remained autonomous (so to speak).  They maintained similar doctrinal beliefs and way of worship as the Catholic Church.  Although all churches were independent, they all sought to maintain communion with one another and have sameness of faith.   

In other instances, some of the churches that developed in isolation were forced to do so because of uncontrolled circumstances, such as religious persecution by the Romans and later the muslims, communication problems, wars, etc.  The Chaldean Syrian Church of India that 'tpiah' mentioned may be one such example.

toneyb:

This wasn't for me but let me jump in here, Of course catholic did not write the bible but they MADE the bible. The bible(compilation of accepted christian scriptures) was a sole idea of the catholic church.

I'm sorry you're singing another tune that has been recycled and retired. Indeed, Catholic scholarship was involved to some extent in the development of a canon, but it was not their canon that leads many making the assumption that "without them and what they did we would have no bible" - that's a bit OTT that is misplaced.

Omenuko:

Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. All of the churches I mentioned in my post (Armenian, Egyptian, Greek, and Ethiopian) were at one point or another part of the Catholic Church. I do agree with you that there were some churches (though quite small in number) that developed apart from the 'Catholic Church'. As that may be the case, they practiced a faith that is very similar to that of the sister churches within the Catholic Church (e.g., Latin, Greek, Ethiopian, Syrian, etc.) and remained autonomous (so to speak). They maintained similar doctrinal beliefs and way of worship as the Catholic Church. Although all churches were independent, they all sought to maintain communion with one another and have sameness of faith.

In other instances, some of the churches that developed in isolation were forced to do so because of uncontrolled circumstances, such as religious persecution by the Romans and later the muslims, communication problems, wars, etc. The Chaldean Syrian Church of India that 'tpiah' mentioned may be one such example.

Thanks for putting it a bit more contextually. Although I agree with you in part, there is a line that still does not quite capture its essence: "All of the churches I mentioned in my post (Armenian, Egyptian, Greek, and Ethiopian) were at one point or another part of the Catholic Church".

No, some of them were not "part of" the Catholic Church. They were not even fringe or minor. Although the sought to have close fellowship and work in unity and community, they still had their 'autonomy' (for want of a better word). It seems that it was due in part to the fact that Rome was trying to exert undue authority over others Churches that ultimately led to a schism.

Omenuko:

I should learn to acknowledge what, without feeling hurt?

Your response to faith69's post was inaccurate and misleading.  Did faith69 say all of the "Christian sects" (orthodox and heretic) were part of the Catholic Church?  No. . .what he posted was that the churches that you presented were all once part of the Catholic Church.

The person who created this thread said, "Don't let the Catholic Faith Deter You From the Christian Faith."  What the originator fails to understand is that the Christian faith is the Catholic Faith.  The Catholic Church is the original church.  The term 'Catholic' was the term the members of the early church used to distinguish between orthodox belief and heretical doctrine from pseudo-christian sects.  What the poster fails to understand is that the Catholic Church included all of the apostolic churches, such as the Roman/Latin, Russian, Greek, Coptic, Ethiopian, Syrian, Indian, etc.  And those orthodox churches that were not initially part of this Catholic Church had their leaders (aka Bishops) appointed by Catholics.  What the poster fails to understand is that the very Bible that he/she uses to better know and grow closer to God was assembled, compiled, and protected by bishops and priests of the Catholic Church.

So if you think about. . . .when Catholics hear things such as what the originator of this thread claims, it goes to show how ignorant and hypocritical many people are.  Talk less of being, anti-catholic.  How foolish can one be to believe that the originators of their Bible (the Bible was compiled some 300 years after the death of Christ) are not Christian?  Now, if the originator of this thread stated the reasons why Catholics are not Christians then he must prove it.  Nothing wrong with a healthy discussion.   

before going off on a tangent, did you read my post #27 on this thread

tpiah:

there were other churches besides the ones I mentioned. Just not as well known.

and I believe my first post was a response to Jagunlabi or someone else. You might need to go back and read the thread from the beginning.

I dont like getting into eschatological arguments because they get too detailed and go offtopic.

But anyway, there were other churches besides the Catholic church. The Syrian church which I mentioned , claims to have been founded by Thomas in 52 AD. I doubt the Catholic church was an organization back then.

The Catholic church didnt preceed Constantine. However, many Christian groups did.

The accession of Constantine was a turning point for the Christian Church, generally considered the beginning of Christendom

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_I_and_Christianity

Catholics didn't write the Bible.

All writers of the Bible are Catholics.

And they were identified with the Catholic Church. St. Ignatius of Antioch the disciple of St. John the Evangelist wrote of the Catholic church, calling the church Catholic. And even at that time the term Catholic in describing the Church was nothing new, so it is no surprise that the early christians are Catholics.

You've never heard of the Greek Orthodox church?

The Ethiopian Church? The Egyptian Coptic church? The Armenian church?

The Egyptian Coptic Church, and the Armenian Church are Catholics. The Greek Orthodox were Catholic until the schism in 1054. Maybe you need to do your own research.

The Catholic Church consists of 23 churches The Eastern churches are 22 and the Western Church. Do research and find the different rites in the church, it is too much to list here.

~Lady~:

All writers of the Bible are Catholics.

That should make such Moses and all OT prophets into Catholics, no?

~Lady~:

The Egyptian Coptic Church, and the Armenian Church are Catholics. The Greek Orthodox were Catholic until the schism in 1054. Maybe you need to do your own research.

No, they're not.

~Lady~:

The Egyptian Coptic Church, and the Armenian Church are Catholics. The Greek Orthodox were Catholic until the schism in 1054. Maybe you need to do your own research.

The Catholic Church consists of 23 churches The Eastern churches are 22 and the Western Church. Do research and find the different rites in the church, it is too much to list here.

I really dont have to keep repeating myself.

i dont think we're on the same page.

And you need to go easy on the crusader mentality.

@dalaman,
Bros, Catholics did not write the Bible - so all this idea that without the Catholic Bishops we would have no Bible is a bit too presumptuous

Madam the burden of proof is on you to prove that the writers were not Catholics. Telling us they are not catholic bcus u don't think they believed what we believe is not evidence enough. You will have to provide evidence of the beliefs of the early christians, and pls use non-christian sources, as i can use non-christian sources to prove that the same beliefs we have today are the same beliefs they have then.

Can you prove that they are not catholic?

pilgrim.1:

No, they're not.

Yes they are. Don't be so foolish to argue with a Catholic about her own church. They very much are Catholics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Catholic_Churches
http://www.easterncatholicchurch.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coptic_Catholic_Church

I really dont have to keep repeating myself.

i dont think we're on the same page.

And you need to go easy on the crusader mentality

I'm on the page that says what I said above, what page are you on?

~Lady~:

Yes they are. Don't be so foolish to argue with a Catholic about her own church. They very much are Catholics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Catholic_Churches
http://www.easterncatholicchurch.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coptic_Catholic_Church

I'm not arguing about what you assume to be your own Church; at least you need to be open to dialogue and see if you not missing out issues. Okay, here are just snapshots to address some misconceptions, among whcih are the ideas that "all churches were  part of the Catholic Church" before the broke away some 451 AD, etc., etc. We've repeatedly observed that is not the case, and here are a few things to consider:

[list]

"The Assyrian church - the Ancient Church of the East, also sometimes referred to as the Nestorian church - traces its roots back to 2nd Century Mesopotamia and is not Catholic.

source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4499668.stm#iraq

Strangely, the church which spread throughout most of Asia bears the apellation “Nestorian, after the fifth century patriarch of Constantinople, Nestorius, who was condemned by Rome as a heretic in A.D. 430. The name is actually a misnomer which became current in the West; the Roman See had sought to discredit this church, which had renounced Rome's primacy for geographical, political, linguistic, and doctrinal reasons. Nestorian was not the name by which the church knew itself., nor was it so commonly designated in Asian lands.
. . .

This ancient church claimed a first-century origin and developed almost wholly apart from the Greek and Roman churches. It did not embrace the heresy of which Nestorius was accused, though it endorsed his opposition to the Roman doctrines of purgatory and Mariolatry, especially her title as “Mother of God.” For at least twelve hundred years the church of the Easterns was noted for its missionary zeal, its high degree of lay participation, its superior educational standards and cultural contributions in less developed countries, and its fortitude in the face of persecution.

source:  Wikipedia

[/list]

pilgrim.1:

I'm sorry you're singing another tune that has been recycled and retired. Indeed, Catholic scholarship was involved to some extent in the development of a canon, but it was not their canon that leads many making the assumption that "without them and what they did we would have no bible" - that's a bit OTT that is misplaced.

Where did the idea of a canon begin from? Since you disagree you then have to show that without the involvement and the idea of the Catholic bishops you would have had the 27 books of the new testament. Can you show me how what I have said is misplaced?

You are just going the extra mail to prove a non existent point. The ONLY reason you have a bible today is because some catholic bishops sat down and put it together, if they hadn't sat down and put it together there will be no bible. There was no bible during the time of Paul, the only scriptures available was the old testament which the christians now believe is invalid and whose must of its laws they believe does not apply to their faith.

Forging apostolic writings was a virtual cottage industry back then and they didn't have forensic science to detect forgeries. So they had to go on their gut when they made decisions until the catholci bishops decided to put a final vote on what they considered to be the word of god and what they considered was not the word of god.(the bible). The criteria the catholics used to determine if a gospel was written by an apostle consisted primarily of how much the gospel agreed with their own theological beliefs. And as a result, we get gospels in the canon that reflect the view of the group of christians(catholic) with the power and influence to force their choices.

The roman christians (catholics) were highly organized and well supported. Their influence spread throughout the rest of the christian world like no other could. They gave priests authority to quash any theological view they deemed heretical. Heretical views just happened to be any view they had decided were incorrect with no more authority than any other sect of Christianity.

That is precisely the problem. From all points considered, it does not follow that all churches were at any point "part of" the Catholic Church. If we revisit Church history, we find that some churches indeed grew almost indepently apart from the Catholic Church; and it was only when they convened to deliberate on doctrines that the schisms occured. Many people interprete these schisms as people leaving the Catholic Church to become other churches - that is not honest by any means.

How can a schism occur if they were not initally a part of the Catholic church. You can only have a schism when you were once together.

Definition of a schism

schism  /ˈsɪzəm, ˈskɪz-/  Show Spelled Pronunciation [siz-uhm, skiz-]  Show IPA
–noun 1. division or disunion, esp. into mutually opposed parties.
2. the parties so formed.
3. Ecclesiastical. a. a formal division within, or separation from, a church or religious body over some doctrinal difference.
b. the state of a sect or body formed by such division.
c. the offense of causing or seeking to cause such a division.

Therefore in order fo division to take place, unity must have been there. Ms. Pilgrim1 you're contradiciting yourself. You said they were not a part of the Catholic church, how can they have a schism, if they never were a part of the Catholic church?

No, some of them were not "part of" the Catholic Church. They were not even fringe or minor. Although the sought to have close fellowship and work in unity and community, they still had their 'autonomy' (for want of a better word). It seems that it was due in part to the fact that Rome was trying to exert undue authority over others Churches that ultimately led to a schism

Maybe you don't seem to understand how the Catholic church functions. Each Church, all 23 of them have their own autonomy, but in union with the Bishop of Rome. They have now what they had then, it was a part of miscommunication that led to the schism. After better communication came into being all churches were able to set aside the differences and better understand each other. They were Catholic then as they are Catholic now. Those that are not in union with the Bishop of ROme today are doing so out of annoyance. The Maronites still claim till today that they had allegiance to the Bishop of Rome when the schism occured.

toneyb:

Where did the idea of a canon begin from? Since you disagree you then have to show that without the involvement and the idea of the Catholic bishops you would have had the 27 books of the new testament. Can you show me how what I have said is misplaced?

You are just going the extra mail to prove a non existent point. The ONLY reason you have a bible today is because some catholic bishops sat down and put it together, if they hadn't sat down and put it together there will be no bible. There was no bible during the time of Paul, the only scriptures available was the old testament which the christians now believe is invalid and whose must of its laws they believe does not apply to their faith.

Forging apostolic writings was a virtual cottage industry back then and they didn't have forensic science to detect forgeries. So they had to go on their gut when they made decisions until the catholci bishops decided to put a final vote on what they considered to be the word of god and what they considered was not the word of god.(the bible). The criteria the catholics used to determine if a gospel was written by an apostle consisted primarily of how much the gospel agreed with their own theological beliefs. And as a result, we get gospels in the canon that reflect the view of the group of christians(catholic) with the power and influence to force their choices.

The roman christians (catholics) were highly organized and well supported. Their influence spread throughout the rest of the christian world like no other could. They gave priests authority to quash any theological view they deemed heretical. Heretical views just happened to be any view they had decided were incorrect with no more authority than any other sect of Christianity.

what part of Jewish Torah are you not getting?

My point is without the New Testament there'll still be plenty of churches, since the early Christians didnt have a new testament in their own bible. Neither did Jesus.

toneyb:

Where did the idea of a canon begin from?

I'd like you to please start from there.