Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I know this is a terrible debating device but I can think of no other wayAmerican Heritage Dictionary
a·the·ism (ā'thē-ĭz'əm)1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
You missed my point entirely. That is not entirely what Atheism is about. Like Catholicism, you have to follow guidelines. If you just believe, that's your choice but don't say it's your religion when you don't follow it's code.
I never said athiesm involved bashing other religions
It can. I never said you said that. Funny?
I don't call myself an Athiest any more
That's great.
I've found that Ignostic covers my philosiphy better
So, you're ignorant, in essence. This is the premise of Ignosticism.
and no Athiesm is not an excuse to do what ever you want but frankly neither is having a religious faith
Who said having faith granted you the immunity to do as you please?
I've seen many catholic people bashed down by Atheists and it's growing tiresome.
I've really tried to make this point to peopleI HAVE NOTHING AGAINST RELIGION! 😠 [/B]
Who said you did? I was making a point. Relax.
Originally posted by Vegas
You missed my point entirely. That is not entirely what Atheism is about. Like Catholicism, you have to follow guidelines. If you just believe, that's your choice but don't say it's your religion when you don't follow it's code.
please show me a list of the guidelines that all athiests must follow
Originally posted by Vegas
So, you're ignorant, in essence. This is the premise of Ignosticism.
no the premise of Ignosticism is basicly that it doesn't matter if god exists or not
thats called apathy not ignorance
Originally posted by Vegas
Who said having faith granted you the immunity to do as you please?
no one but you said people thought athiesm gave them the same athority
Part 1:
*["OK, what happens to all the other Bible believing people that have a different denomination than you.??"]
***Before I give you my take on this...let me give you a definition of the term "denomination." In simple laymen terms...a denomination is a group of local congregations that are joined together under some
governing body...the number of congregations can be as few as two or more...but by their tie to a governing body above the local congregation...they are "denominated" from all congregations that do NOT submit to the SAME authority.
I do NOT support "denominationalism" because it is a "bad" thing and those participating in it CANNOT serve Christ FAITHFULLY. Too, it causes DIVISION among true Bible-believing Christians...and ECUMENICAL UNITY among Liberal "christians" and cults who do NOT believe the Bible.
Listed below are my reasons why I believe "denominationalism" is WRONG:
(A)It is UN-SCRIPTURAL
(1)There is NO basis in the Bible for local churches being DIVIDED into various denominational bodies.
(2)In the New Testament local congregations were independent and self-governing. Also, church organization was LIMITED to WITHIN the local congregation...with elders, bishops, overseers, and presbyters who were appointed to oversee ONLY the congregation of which they were members [i.e., Acts 20:17,28;1 Peter 5:1-2].
(3)The only AUTHORITY above the local church in the New Testament was Christ and His apostles. Once the church began, the apostles were NOT REPLACED after they died...but, THROUGH the Word of God, the AUTHORITY of Christ and His apostles CONTINUES.
(4)Individuals, synods, conferences, etc., that presume to usurp AUTHORITY over local congregations today do so WITHOUT Scriptural support.
(B)Denominationalism is ANTI-SCRIPTURAL
(1)Not only is it WITHOUT Scriptural support...it is CONTRARY to what the Bible teaches.
(2)It is CONTRARY to the prayer of Jesus for the UNITY among TRUE BELIEVERS [John 17:20-23].
(3)It was CONDEMNED by Paul in his epistle to the church at Corinth...which stated that there were to be NO divisions among TRUE BELIEVERS [1 Corinthians 1:10-13]. Too, sectarianism is a sign of CARNALITY [1 Corinthians 3:3-4].
(4)It opposes the efforts of Christ on the cross [Ephesians 2:14-16]...for our Lord died to break down the wall of DIVISION...to RECONCILE man to God in ONE body.
(C)Denominationalism is harmful to the cause of Christ
(1)Jesus knew that UNITY among His disciples would be "the FINAL apologetic" [Cf. "that the world may BELIEVE"...John 17:21]. In view of
Jesus' words, we [i.e., the Believers] should NOT be surprised when UNBELIEVERS are SLOW to ACCEPT the gospel coming from a DIVIDED Church.
(2)Many people point to the DIVIDED condition of those professing to follow Christ. In point of fact, I've HEARD this SAME argument on these very threads. Atheists and agnostics often use religious DIVISION as an EXCUSE not to believe in God...and adherents to non-Christian religions [such as Islam, Judaism, etc.] will often use denominationalism as a reason NOT to believe in Christ.
(3)Denominationalism has also given support and encouragement to the CULTS. MORMONISM started in reaction to the denominationalism of Joseph Smith's day. Those who call themselves "Jehovah's Witnesses" use religious DIVISION to encourage people to follow their strictly-controlled organization.
However, this being said...there are BELIEVERS in the many denominations that DIVIDE Christianity...inspite of the fact that they are outside of the WILL of God for their membership in them. The UNITY that ALL True Christians have in COMMON [irregardless of their denominational affiliations] is that we ALL have been BORN AGAIN by the HOLY Spirit of God...read about it in [John 3:1-21].
At the RAPTURE of the Church [1 Corinthians 15:51-58]...EVERY "born again" believer in EVERY different denomination...who is still alive...will be "changed" [i.e., will be immediately be given a GLORIOUS new body like Christ's...1 Corinthians 15:51]. The DEAD Christians will also be "changed"...and we ALL [the LIVING and the DEAD in Christ] will RISE as ONE BODY [1 Corinthians 15:52]...and we will be with the Lord Jesus Christ FOREVER! This is the HOPE of the BELIEVER. The NON-Christian does NOT have this HOPE and will perish and suffer the SECOND DEATH at the White Throne judgment and be thrown in the Lake of Fire.
If you have any other questions and are REALLY interested in Biblical answers, I will be happy to respond. However, I will not respond to your requests if you're going to play games with me and ridicule what I have to say as you have in the past.
Marchello
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
please show me a list of the guidelines that all athiests must followno the premise of Ignosticism is basicly that it doesn't matter if god exists or not
thats called apathy not ignorance
no one but you said people thought athiesm gave them the same athority
You're basically ignoring the fact that there may possibly be a god. It is, in essence, Ignorance.
And type "Atheism" into a search engine. You'll see that Atheism has rules stating that you must be good to your fellow man and follow a certain philosophy.
Atheism is not "Do what you want because you don't believe in jack shit."
The Philosophy has guidelines, believe it or not.
Originally posted by Vegas
You're basically ignoring the fact that there may possibly be a god. It is, in essence, Ignorance.And type "Atheism" into a search engine. You'll see that Atheism has rules stating that you must be good to your fellow man and follow a certain philosophy.
Atheism is not "Do what you want because you don't believe in jack shit."
The Philosophy has guidelines, believe it or not.
Bullshit.
Atheism is just a belief. You don't have to follow any rules. There are no leaders. There is no one and nothing that tells you what to do. If you do not belief in a God you are an atheist. That's all there is to it.
I don't rule out the possibility that there is a God, but I also believe that there isn't one. So I am an agnostic and an atheist.
Though, if you want to use your argumentation. Aren't religious people basically ignorant? As they rule out the possibility that there is no God?
Originally posted by Vegas
And type "Atheism" into a search engine. You'll see that Atheism has rules stating that you must be good to your fellow man and follow a certain philosophy.Atheism is not "Do what you want because you don't believe in jack shit."
The Philosophy has guidelines, believe it or not.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Bullshit.Atheism is just a belief. You don't have to follow any rules. There are no leaders. There is no one and nothing that tells you what to do. If you do not belief in a God you are an atheist. That's all there is to it.
I don't rule out the possibility that there is a God, but I also believe that there isn't one. So I am an agnostic and an atheist.
Though, if you want to use your argumentation. Aren't religious people basically ignorant? As they rule out the possibility that there is no God?
Depends there are plenty of religious people who believe there is a god, accept the fact that their might not be but choose to listen to the rules of god and pray to god anyways because they still believe he or she or it exists.
It's only when you rule out possibility's that you are really ignorant.
Originally posted by Fishy
Depends there are plenty of religious people who believe there is a god, accept the fact that their might not be but choose to listen to the rules of god and pray to god anyways because they still believe he or she or it exists.It's only when you rule out possibility's that you are really ignorant.
...yeah...as I said...using his argumentation...
Originally posted by Marchello
Page 1:***And, of course, you do err...NOT knowing the Scriptures NOR believing them that you might be SAVED. As a papist, you contend that the whole world is INDEBTED to the Roman Catholic church for the EXISTENCE of the Bible. This is just another of your church's attempts to EXALT the church as an authority IN ADDITION to the Bible.
Please let me give you a few quotes from some of your Catholic sources...to wit:
(1) "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.
(2) "If she had not declared the books composing the New Testament to be inspired word of God, we would not know it.
(3) "The only authority which non-Catholics have for the inspiration of the Scriptures is the authority of the Catholic Church." (The Faith of Millions, p. 145)
(4) "It is only by the divine authority of the Catholic Church that Christians know that the scripture is the word of God, and what books certainly belong to the Bible." (The Question Box, p. 46)
(5) "It was the Catholic Church and no other which selected and listed the inspired books of both the Old Testament and the New Testament...If you can accept the Bible or any part of it as inspired Word of God, you can do so only because the Catholic Church says it is." (The Bible is a Catholic Book, p. 4).Your Catholic writers quoted above state that one can accept the Bible as being INSPIRED and as having AUTHORITY ONLY on the basis of the Catholic Church. In reality, the Bible is INSPIRED and has AUTHORITY, NOT because a CHURCH declared it so, BUT because GOD MADE IT SO. God delivered it by the INSPIRATION of the Holy Spirit and declared that it would abide FOREVER. "ALL scripture is inspired OF God..." [2 Tim. 3:16]. "...Holy men of God spoke as they were moved BY the Holy
Spirit" [2 Pet. 1:21]. "Heaven and earth will pass away, but MY words will NOT pass away" [Matt. 24:35].(Continued)
First of all I'm not catholic if anything I would be a protestant, second of all I do believe in God in case you want to say that next, and third this still does not answer my original question of the crusades and proves absolutely nothing. You still justified the crusades and the inquisition (to a certain point, protestants broke up during the end of the inquisition.)
The Catholic church still decided what books got in the bible, their claims on how those books were chosen are completely irrelevant.
Originally posted by Bardock42
...yeah...as I said...using his argumentation...
Sorry misunderstood you then...
*["...I do believe in God in case you want to say that next..."]
***So does the devil...so what makes your belief different than his. Too, what is the name of your god...and what has he done for you that you should show him your allegiance?
*******************************************
*["...and third this still does not answer my original question of the crusades and proves absolutely nothing. You still justified the crusades and the inquisition (to a certain point, protestants broke up during the end of the inquisition..."]
***I answered your questions with an ABUNDANCE of PROOF...your problem is that you don't want to accept ANY proof (i.e., even from Catholic sources themselves) and summarily dismiss them. Too, you only DENY and offer NOTHING to SUBSTANTIATE your DENIALS...the sign of an IGNORANT fool with an AGENDA.
********************************************
*["...The Catholic church still decided what books got in the bible, their claims on how those books were chosen are completely irrelevant."]
***Where's the PROOF of that?...there is NO proof...zero...zip...zilch! Quit making a fool of yourself and go out and get a job.
Marchello
Originally posted by Marchello
*["...I do believe in God in case you want to say that next..."]***So does the devil...so what makes your belief different than his. Too, what is the name of your god...and what has he done for you that you should show him your allegiance?
*******************************************
*["...and third this still does not answer my original question of the crusades and proves absolutely nothing. You still justified the crusades and the inquisition (to a certain point, protestants broke up during the end of the inquisition..."]
***I answered your questions with an ABUNDANCE of PROOF...your problem is that you don't want to accept ANY proof (i.e., even from Catholic sources themselves) and summarily dismiss them. Too, you only DENY and offer NOTHING to SUBSTANTIATE your DENIALS...the sign of an IGNORANT fool with an AGENDA.
********************************************
*["...The Catholic church still decided what books got in the bible, their claims on how those books were chosen are completely irrelevant."]
***Where's the PROOF of that?...there is NO proof...zero...zip...zilch! Quit making a fool of yourself and go out and get a job.
Marchello
You're using the bible and presenting it as fact, and then actually call it proof? It may be for you, but it is not fact. It's an anthology, written dozens to hundreds of years after Jesus lived, and complied and given canon consideration hundreds of years after that. I also like how you condemn Catholicism, but use the same reasoning they did 1500 years ago to ignore any number of other gospels that disagree with your intrepretation.
Originally posted by Marchello
*["...I do believe in God in case you want to say that next..."]***So does the devil...so what makes your belief different than his. Too, what is the name of your god...and what has he done for you that you should show him your allegiance?
*******************************************
What makes my belief in god different then the devils? What an idiotic question, what makes your belief in god different then that of the Devil? How the hell should I know, I'm not the devil now am I? Never talked to the bastard, wouldn't even know if he or she is real...
*["...and third this still does not answer my original question of the crusades and proves absolutely nothing. You still justified the crusades and the inquisition (to a certain point, protestants broke up during the end of the inquisition..."]***I answered your questions with an ABUNDANCE of PROOF...your problem is that you don't want to accept ANY proof (i.e., even from Catholic sources themselves) and summarily dismiss them. Too, you only DENY and offer NOTHING to SUBSTANTIATE your DENIALS...the sign of an IGNORANT fool with an AGENDA.
********************************************
How can you answer the justification of the Crusade with proof? Prove of what? That the Catholic Church was indeed back then the only church in western Europe, and the church from which your Church was later created? Let's make a few things clear here.
1.) Catholic Church started the crusades long before protestants split from them.
2.) Protestants did not split from the Catholic Church because of the crusades. They didn't even call the crusades bad at the beginning, I don't know how they feel about them now. But for more then a thousand years the RCC was seen as the only real authority on Jesus and the Bible. Their believes were right and that was it.
*["...The Catholic church still decided what books got in the bible, their claims on how those books were chosen are completely irrelevant."]***Where's the PROOF of that?...there is NO proof...zero...zip...zilch! Quit making a fool of yourself and go out and get a job.
Marchello
What is it with religious nut jobs and telling others to get a job? I have a job...
And ever heard of the council of Nicaea? You might want to read up on it, it was the meeting in which all Christian bishops decided what would be canon and united the Christian religion. The council of Nicaea decided what should be in the bible, they wrote the Bible. That council later on turned into the Roman Catholic Church which was for a very long time the only Christian church and all believes today from every Christian religion can still find their origins in the Roman Catholic Church and thus the council of Nicaea.
Page 1:
*["What makes my belief in god different then the devils? What an idiotic question...How the hell should I know, I'm not the devil now am I?...wouldn't even know if he or she is real..."]
***Let me preface my remarks by stating that I believe...from your answers...that you ARE, indeed, a Catholic...and your DENIAL to the contrary will not change my conviction that you are...so deal with it.
The question is NOT an IDIOTIC one...for ALL men EITHER believe in the ONE true God [i.e., the TRIUNE Godhead]...OR they believe in the "god of this world...Satan...the DEVIL" [2 Corinthians 4:4]...to wit: "In whom the god of this world hath BLINDED the MINDS of them which believe NOT, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the IMAGE of God, should shine unto them."
I believe you when you say that you believe in god...but the "god" that you believe in is NOT the God of the Bible...for the "god" that you believe in...is the "god of this world...Satan." Too, you are a "son" of that god (Satan...the DEVIL) [John 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."
********************************************
*["...That the Catholic Church was indeed back then the only church in western Europe, and the church from which your Church was later created?..."]
***That is a LIE...for there have ALWAYS been independent Churches and they existed LONG before the Catholic church was formed in the 4th century...to wit:
(1)The Church at Corinth [1 Corinthians 1:2] "Unto the Church of God which is at Corinth..." This epistle was written by Paul in 56 A.D....AND [2 Corinthians 1:1] "Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, unto the church of God which is at Corinth..." This epistle was written by Paul in 57 A.D.
(2)The Churches at Galatia [Galatians 1:2] "And all the brethern which are with me, unto the churches of Galatia." There were a number of churches in Galatia when Paul wrote this epistle in 49 A.D.
(3)The Church at Ephesus [Ephesians 1:1] "Paul an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:" This epistle was written in 61 A.D.
(4)The Church at Philippi [Philippians 1:1]: "Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:" This epistle was written in 61 A.D.
(5)The Church at Colosse [Colossians 1:2] "To the saints and faithful brethern in Christ which are at Colosse: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ" written by Paul in 61 A.D.
(6)The Church at Thessalonica [1 Thessalonians 1:1]: "Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians which is in God the Father and in the Lord jesus Christ:..." This epistle was written by Paul in 51 A.D...and [2 Thessalonians 1:1] "Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians in God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." This epistle was written in 51 A.D.
So then...the Church that I was formed from and those of Corinth...Ephesus...Philippi...Colosse...and Thessalonica is the SAME Church of God that has existed from the beginning. The Roman Catholic church is the ABOMINATION that was formed by Constantine...an amalgum of the corrupt religious and governmental systems that existed at that time. The TRUE Church of God has God [Jesus Christ] as it's HEAD [Ephesians 1:22;4:15;5:24]...for He is the ROCK on which it is built [1 Corinthians 10:4] "And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual ROCK that followed them: and that ROCK was Christ."
*******************************************
*["Let's make a few things clear here.
1.) Catholic Church started the crusades long before protestants split from them.
2.) Protestants did not split from the Catholic Church because of the crusades. They didn't even call the crusades bad at the beginning, I don't know how they feel about them now..."]
***Yes, indeed, the Catholic Church DID start the crusades LOOOONG before protestants split from them. Too, some of the "protestants" that split from Romanism did NOT think the crusades were BAD...but those "protestants" that withdrew from the Catholic church were NOT necessarily Christians. The definition of Christian does NOT mean that you are necessarily a "protestant"...a Christian is one who has RECEIVED Jesus Christ as his SAVIOUR and LORD. The 'protestants" that WERE Christians and withdrew from the Roman Church SOLELY because it had become APOSTATE...and a WHORE...and sought to impose her WILL on the governments of the world at that time...and PROSTITUDED herself for POWER and INFLUENCE. Because of that...protestants, of necessity, could NOT support the Crusades and be CONSISTENT with their faith in Christ. So NO..."protestants" who were Christian did NOT and could NOT support the crusades.
********************************************
*["But for more then a thousand years the RCC was seen as the only real authority on Jesus and the Bible. Their believes were right and that was it..."]
***Spoken like the true lying papist that you really are.
********************************************
*["What is it with religious nut jobs and telling others to get a job? I have a job..."]
***N/A
(Continued)
Page 2:
*["...The council of Nicaea decided what should be in the bible, they wrote the Bible. That council later on turned into the Roman Catholic Church which was for a very long time the only Christian church and all believes today from every Christian religion can still find their origins in the Roman Catholic Church and thus the council of Nicaea."]
***What a LOAD! The Council of Nicea does NOT have the power of God...and NEVER wrote anything that is INSPIRED. Only God is the AUTHOR of the Scriptures...for it is written: "ALL Scripture is given by INSPIRATION of GOD, and is profitable for DOCTRINE, for REPROOF, for CORRECTION, for instruction in RIGHTEOUSNESS" [2 Timothy 3:16]. The Bible came ONLY from God THROUGH the men who wrote it [2 Peter 1:21]. God superintended these HUMAN authors so that using individual personalities, they composed and recorded without error God's word to man.
It was NOT the Council of Nicea that determined which books were actually inspired and placed in one volume according to the Catholic church...but rather, the Council of Hippo in 390 A.D. Too, they allege that all are indebted to the Catholic Church for the New Testament and can accept it only on the authority of the Catholic Church. There are several things wrong with this. First, it cannot be proven that the church which held the Council of Hippo in 390 A.D. was the same church which is now known as the Roman Catholic Church. For example, the church of 390 had no crucifixes and images because, "The first mention of Crucifixes are in the sixth century" and "The whole tradition of veneration holy images gradually and naturally developed" (Catholic
Encyclopedia, Vol. VII, p. 667). The church of 390 took communion under both kinds because that was the prevailing practice until it was formally abolished in 1416 A.D. (See Lives and Times of the Roman Pontiffs, Vol. I, p. 111). The church of 390 was a church altogether different from the Roman Catholic Church today.
Furthermore, in the proceedings of the Council of Hippo, the bishops did not mention nor give the slightest hint that they were for the first time "officially" cataloging the books of he Bible for the world. It was not until the fourth session of the Council of Trent (1545-1563) that the bishops and high ranking officials of the Catholic Church "officially" cataloged the books they thought should be included in the Bible and bound them upon the consciences of all Catholics. (See Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, pp. 17-18). Secondly, God did not give councils the authority to select His sacred books, nor does He expect men to receive His sacred books only because of councils or on the basis of councils. It takes no vote or sanction of a council to make the
books of the Bible authoritative. Men were able to rightly discern which books were inspired before the existence of ecclesiastical councils and men can do so today. A council of men in 390 with no divine authority whatever, supposedly took upon itself the right to state which books were inspired, and Catholics argue, "We can accept the Bible only on the authority of the Catholic Church." Can we follow such reasoning?
Thirdly, it cannot be proven that the Catholic Church is solely responsible for the gathering and selection of the New Testament books. In fact, it can be shown that the New Testament books were gathered into one volume and were in circulation long before the Catholic Church claims to have taken its action in 390 at the council of Hippo.
In the following I have listed some of the catalogues of the books of the Bible which are given by early Christian writers.
(1) 326. Athanasius, bishop at Alexandria, mentions all of the New Testament books.
(2) 315-386. Cyril, bishop at Jerusalem, gives a list of all New Testament books except Revelation.
(3) 270. Eusebius, bishop at Caesarea, called the Father of ecclesiastical history, gives an account of the persecution of Emperor Diocletian whose edict required that all churches be destroyed and the Scriptures
burned. He lists all the books of the New Testament. He was commissioned by Constantine to have transcribed fifty copies of the Bible for use of the churches of Constantinople.
(4) 185-254. Origen, born at Alexandria, names all the books of both the Old and New Testaments.
(5) 165-220. Clement, of Alexandria, names all the books of the New Testament except Philemon, James, 2 Peter and 3 John. In addition we are told by Eusebius, who had the works of Clement, that he gave explanations and quotations from all the canonical books.
(6) 160-240. Tertullian, contemporary of Origen and Clement, mentions all the New Testament books except 2 Peter, James and 2 John.
(7) 135-200. Irenaeus, quoted from all New Testament books except Philemon, Jude, James and 3 John.
(8) 100-147. Justin Martyr, mentions the Gospels as being four in number and quotes from them and some of the epistles of Paul and Revelation.
Besides the above...the early church fathers have handed down in their writings quotations from ALL the New Testament books...so much so that it is said that the ENTIRE New Testament can be REPRODUCED from their writings ALONE!
Finally; ALL of the DOCTRINE that Christians are to believe today are NOT found in ANY church...especially from the CORRUPT Roman Catholic Church with it's PEDOPHILE & HOMOSEXUAL clergy. The Bible ALONE lays out EXACTLY what we are to believe very clearly...and it's DICTATES are INSPIRED by God ALONE [2 Timothy 3:16].
Marchello
Originally posted by Marchello
Page 2:*["...The council of Nicaea decided what should be in the bible, they wrote the Bible. That council later on turned into the Roman Catholic Church which was for a very long time the only Christian church and all believes today from every Christian religion can still find their origins in the Roman Catholic Church and thus the council of Nicaea."]
***What a LOAD! The Council of Nicea does NOT have the power of God...and NEVER wrote anything that is INSPIRED. Only God is the AUTHOR of the Scriptures...for it is written: "ALL Scripture is given by INSPIRATION of GOD, and is profitable for DOCTRINE, for REPROOF, for CORRECTION, for instruction in RIGHTEOUSNESS" [2 Timothy 3:16]. The Bible came ONLY from God THROUGH the men who wrote it [2 Peter 1:21]. God superintended these HUMAN authors so that using individual personalities, they composed and recorded without error God's word to man.
It was NOT the Council of Nicea that determined which books were actually inspired and placed in one volume according to the Catholic church...but rather, the Council of Hippo in 390 A.D. Too, they allege that all are indebted to the Catholic Church for the New Testament and can accept it only on the authority of the Catholic Church. There are several things wrong with this. First, it cannot be proven that the church which held the Council of Hippo in 390 A.D. was the same church which is now known as the Roman Catholic Church. For example, the church of 390 had no crucifixes and images because, "The first mention of Crucifixes are in the sixth century" and "The whole tradition of veneration holy images gradually and naturally developed" (Catholic
Encyclopedia, Vol. VII, p. 667). The church of 390 took communion under both kinds because that was the prevailing practice until it was formally abolished in 1416 A.D. (See Lives and Times of the Roman Pontiffs, Vol. I, p. 111). The church of 390 was a church altogether different from the Roman Catholic Church today.Furthermore, in the proceedings of the Council of Hippo, the bishops did not mention nor give the slightest hint that they were for the first time "officially" cataloging the books of he Bible for the world. It was not until the fourth session of the Council of Trent (1545-1563) that the bishops and high ranking officials of the Catholic Church "officially" cataloged the books they thought should be included in the Bible and bound them upon the consciences of all Catholics. (See Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, pp. 17-18). Secondly, God did not give councils the authority to select His sacred books, nor does He expect men to receive His sacred books only because of councils or on the basis of councils. It takes no vote or sanction of a council to make the
books of the Bible authoritative. Men were able to rightly discern which books were inspired before the existence of ecclesiastical councils and men can do so today. A council of men in 390 with no divine authority whatever, supposedly took upon itself the right to state which books were inspired, and Catholics argue, "We can accept the Bible only on the authority of the Catholic Church." Can we follow such reasoning?
Thirdly, it cannot be proven that the Catholic Church is solely responsible for the gathering and selection of the New Testament books. In fact, it can be shown that the New Testament books were gathered into one volume and were in circulation long before the Catholic Church claims to have taken its action in 390 at the council of Hippo.In the following I have listed some of the catalogues of the books of the Bible which are given by early Christian writers.
(1) 326. Athanasius, bishop at Alexandria, mentions all of the New Testament books.
(2) 315-386. Cyril, bishop at Jerusalem, gives a list of all New Testament books except Revelation.
(3) 270. Eusebius, bishop at Caesarea, called the Father of ecclesiastical history, gives an account of the persecution of Emperor Diocletian whose edict required that all churches be destroyed and the Scriptures
burned. He lists all the books of the New Testament. He was commissioned by Constantine to have transcribed fifty copies of the Bible for use of the churches of Constantinople.
(4) 185-254. Origen, born at Alexandria, names all the books of both the Old and New Testaments.
(5) 165-220. Clement, of Alexandria, names all the books of the New Testament except Philemon, James, 2 Peter and 3 John. In addition we are told by Eusebius, who had the works of Clement, that he gave explanations and quotations from all the canonical books.
(6) 160-240. Tertullian, contemporary of Origen and Clement, mentions all the New Testament books except 2 Peter, James and 2 John.
(7) 135-200. Irenaeus, quoted from all New Testament books except Philemon, Jude, James and 3 John.
(8) 100-147. Justin Martyr, mentions the Gospels as being four in number and quotes from them and some of the epistles of Paul and Revelation.Besides the above...the early church fathers have handed down in their writings quotations from ALL the New Testament books...so much so that it is said that the ENTIRE New Testament can be REPRODUCED from their writings ALONE!
Finally; ALL of the DOCTRINE that Christians are to believe today are NOT found in ANY church...especially from the CORRUPT Roman Catholic Church with it's PEDOPHILE & HOMOSEXUAL clergy. The Bible ALONE lays out EXACTLY what we are to believe very clearly...and it's DICTATES are INSPIRED by God ALONE [2 Timothy 3:16].
Marchello
MARCELLO ! DIDNT I TELL YOU TO SHUT THE **** UP ???!??!?
WHY DO YOU INSIST ON FURTHER SPEAKING ?
CLOSE YOUR FKN TEETH !