• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Comparing Catholic Beliefs with the Teachings of Jesus in Scripture

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
I would like to invite the Catholic posters here to give me their definition of each belief represented by the pictures taken from....

cec_title2.png


On the webpage of the Catholic Enquiry Centre of Australia we find the following images, representing some basic Catholic beliefs.


mary.jpg

This I assume is Mary with the child Jesus.
Who is Mary in Catholic belief? What does the Bible say about her?

baptism-small.jpg

This is infant baptism, practiced by a number of Christendom's churches.
What does the Bible say about this practice?


candle.jpg

What does the lighting of candles represent in Catholic belief?
Will I find this practice in Christian scripture?

eucharist-jpeg.jpg

The host, said to transform into the body of Christ, his actual flesh, and the wine his actual blood.
Why is it round? What does the Bible say about this?

bible-and-rosary.jpg

Rosary beads and repetitive prayers.
Is there any mention of them in the Bible?

redeemer-small.jpg

An image of Jesus on the cross, familiar in most Catholic churches.
What does the Bible say about the use of images in worship?

CallandResponse_150.jpg

This book is used to teach the basics of the Catholic faith but in the image on the front cover, we see a representation of a halo on the subject. (whom I assume is Jesus Christ)
What is the origin of the halo in Catholic art?

I would like to give Catholic posters here the opportunity to explain their beliefs before I comment further.

Over to you.
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
Who is Mary in Catholic belief? What does the Bible say about her?

Don't confuse popular Marian piety through the ages with actual belief about Mary.

This is infant baptism, practiced by a number of Christendom's churches.
What does the Bible say about this practice?

I suggest you examine the use of 'household' in both Hebrew and Christian Scripture.

Notice that the art you've chosen is Christo centric.

What is the origin of the halo in Catholic art?

Then I saw another mighty angel come down from heaven wrapped in a cloud, with a halo around his head; his face was like the sun and his feet were like pillars of fire. Rev 10:1
 

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
How about comparing the similarities? Both groups depend on someone else to tell them what God's Word means. Both groups attribute more honor to the men in charge than they do for each other. Both groups claim theirs is the way to please God best. Maybe you should know @Deeje that the Catholic Church does send out missionaries for telling people the way of God and does offer encouragement to its members to preach Jesus.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
I would like to give Catholic posters here the opportunity to explain their beliefs before I comment further.

Over to you.

I'm not Catholic so I'm probably talking out my backside but my Wife is.

From what I understand the Catholics don't see the Bible in the same light as the Protestants. While for most Protestants the Bible is the deFacto rule book the Catholics have an authorized representative here on earth, the Pope, who can modify the theological understanding of their faith.

The Catholics put the Bible together. They've modified it in the past. They have ownership of the Bible.

So IMO you can't judge the authenticity of the Catholic Church on the Bible alone. You also have to take into consideration the papal bull that has occured over the many years along with other decrees and documents issued by the office of the Pope.
 

2ndpillar

Well-Known Member
How about comparing the similarities? Both groups depend on someone else to tell them what God's Word means. Both groups attribute more honor to the men in charge than they do for each other. Both groups claim theirs is the way to please God best. Maybe you should know @Deeje that the Catholic Church does send out missionaries for telling people the way of God and does offer encouragement to its members to preach Jesus.

The preaching of "Jesus", the false prophet Paul's false gospel of grace/cross, is antithetical to the preaching of the kingdom of heaven. One leads to "life", and one leads to "destruction" (Matthew 7:13-15).
 

Shiranui117

Pronounced Shee-ra-noo-ee
Premium Member
Somewhat similar to the coin minted by Constantine, featuring his sun god, Sol Invictus.
[GALLERY=media, 8804]SolInvictusDisc by 2ndpillar posted Dec 14, 2018 at 12:38 PM[/GALLERY][GALLERY=media, 8804]SolInvictusDisc by 2ndpillar posted Dec 14, 2018 at 12:38 PM[/GALLERY]
Sol Invictus was a later invention. Jesus predates that by about 250 years.
 

2ndpillar

Well-Known Member
Sol Invictus was a later invention. Jesus predates that by about 250 years.

The Roman church was instituted in the year 325 AD by the Roman Emperor Constantine when he convened the Council of Nicaea. The Roman church is antithetical to the testimony of Yeshua, and is founded on the "worthless shepherd" (Zechariah 11:17), Peter, and the false prophet Paul (Zechariah 11:10), the "staffs" taken to "pasture" the "flock doomed to slaughter"(Zechariah11:7).
 

Shiranui117

Pronounced Shee-ra-noo-ee
Premium Member
I'm Eastern Orthodox, but as a former Roman Catholic, I can still explain the teachings.

mary.jpg

This I assume is Mary with the child Jesus.
Correct.

Who is Mary in Catholic belief? What does the Bible say about her?
Catholics hold that Mary is the Mother of God the Son, the second Person of the Trinity. They hold that God preserved her from all stain of original sin so she would be worthy to bear God in her womb like the Ark of the Covenant. She was taken to Heaven at the end of her earthly life (Catholics are unsure of whether or not she actually died), and right now she prays for the salvation of all. Catholics ask her to pray for them to Christ like they might ask a family member to pray for them.

This is infant baptism, practiced by a number of Christendom's churches.
What does the Bible say about this practice?
The Bible mentions whole households being received into the faith, presumably including small children. Baptism is analagous to circumcision in that it's an initiation into the life of the Church. Some Protestants disagree with infant baptism, saying an infant can't be put into God's service until they're old enough to say for themselves. Catholics would point to Samuel being dedicated by his mother to the service of the Tabernacle when he was a newborn as proof that, yes, one can be brought into the faith by virtue of their parents' faith.

What does the lighting of candles represent in Catholic belief?
It represents a couple things. It represents Christ, Who is the light of the world, it represents God's grace in the life of the believer, and many Christians light candles when they begin praying.

Will I find this practice in Christian scripture?
Given that candles were the only way to light up a room until the 1700's, you can expect to find as many references to lighting candles as you would expect to find references to people taking a crap. It's a ubiquitous thing that nobody would have thought to write about because candles were as omnipresent as lightbulbs are to us today.

Why is it round? What does the Bible say about this?
Why is it round? The same reason that most loaves of bread are round. It's a convenient shape to put it in before baking. I don't know when Roman Catholics went from baking actual unleavened loaves of bread to using wafers, but I'd assume the wafers are still in the shape of a circle because, again, it's the simplest shape to bake something in--think rolls and cookies.

Rosary beads and repetitive prayers.
Is there any mention of them in the Bible?
Rosary beads are just a way of counting prayers. And yes, people did use standardized prayers like the "Shema Yisrael" and many of the Psalms as part of daily prayers. The Jews still do to this day.

Additionally, in the Parable of the Publican and the Pharisee, we see the tax collector standing in the back of the Temple, beating his breast and saying "Lord, have mercy on me" repeatedly. Likewise the blind men shouting to Christ and saying, "Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!"

What does the Bible say about the use of images in worship?
It's commanded, actually. God commanded the making of the ark and all the furnishings of the temple including images of cherubim, animals and plants.

This book is used to teach the basics of the Catholic faith but in the image on the front cover, we see a representation of a halo on the subject. (whom I assume is Jesus Christ)
You are correct.

What is the origin of the halo in Catholic art?
The person spoken of in Malachi 4:2 is held by Christians to be Christ. Christ said He is the light of the world, and He calls us to be the light of the world, too. Putting a halo behind someone's head is a good pictorial way to represent that idea.
 

Shiranui117

Pronounced Shee-ra-noo-ee
Premium Member
The Roman church was instituted in the year 325 AD by the Roman Emperor Constantine when he convened the Council of Nicaea. The Roman church is antithetical to the testimony of Yeshua, and is founded on the "worthless shepherd" (Zechariah 11:17), Peter, and the false prophet Paul (Zechariah 11:10), the "staffs" taken to "pasture" the "flock doomed to slaughter"(Zechariah11:7).
Uhh, no. The Roman Church had existed since at least Clement of Rome in the late 60's AD. Constantine didn't even firmly establish the Church as the dominant religion of his empire; he flip-flopped a lot between Arianism and Orthodoxy, and for decades it was Arianism, not Orthodoxy, that enjoyed the favor of the emperors. It wasn't until 60 years later that Orthodoxy finally triumphed definitively over the Arian heresy at the First Council of Constantinople in the year 381.

You should do some reading of Church history using the primary documents instead of listening to whatever conspiracy theorists keep inventing all these silly fairy tales about history.
 

2ndpillar

Well-Known Member
Uhh, no. The Roman Church had existed since at least Clement of Rome in the late 60's AD. Constantine didn't even firmly establish the Church as the dominant religion of his empire; he flip-flopped a lot between Arianism and Orthodoxy, and for decades it was Arianism, not Orthodoxy, that enjoyed the favor of the emperors. It wasn't until 60 years later that Orthodoxy finally triumphed definitively over the Arian heresy at the First Council of Constantinople in the year 381.

You should do some reading of Church history using the primary documents instead of listening to whatever conspiracy theorists keep inventing all these silly fairy tales about history.

To read church history, is to read the lies of the winners. The church historian Eusebius pleads guilty to lying for the sake of people such as you. Constantine burned the books of Arian, and decreed death to those who were found with such writings. In 380 AD, Theodosius declared the "Nicene Trinitarian Christianity" as the only legitimate Imperial religion. I suggest that you do some reading outside of the church library. I suggest the book "Constantine the Great: the man and his times". Prior to 380 AD, in the 367, the NT canon was set by a proponent of the false Trinity dogma, Athanasius, who sat at the Nicene Council. Your false Trinity dogma, and your canon, all started with Constantine and his Council of Nicaea. Constantine supported any version which would unify his empire, and he finally settled on the Trinity dogma.

"That it will be necessary sometimes to use falsehood as a remedy for the benefit of those who require such a mode of treatment"
{Eusebius. The title for chapter 32 of the twelth book of Evangelical Preparation}


"In addition, if any writing composed by Arius should be found, it should be handed over to the flames, so that not only will the wickedness of his teaching be obliterated, but nothing will be left even to remind anyone of him. And I hereby make a public order, that if someone should be discovered to have hidden a writing composed by Arius, and not to have immediately brought it forward and destroyed it by fire, his penalty shall be death. As soon as he is discovered in this offence, he shall be submitted for capital punishment....." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism



— Edict by Emperor Constantine against the Arians[8]
 
Last edited:

2ndpillar

Well-Known Member
You should do some reading of Church history using the primary documents instead of listening to whatever conspiracy theorists keep inventing all these silly fairy tales about history.

The fairy tales of the church, such as the vision of Constantine, being one of Christ and not Sol Invictus, is not supported by the historical record, of Constantine minting a coin 1 year after the vision, with Sol Invictus on the reverse of the coin, fronted with a portrait of Constantine, in the year 313 AD. Of course, the fairy tale version was written by the self proclaimed liar, Eusebius, with regards to the history of the Roman church. But that is all right, the father of lies, needs his supporters. Otherwise, how are you going to get one third of mankind being killed by fire, smoke and sulfur (Revelation 9:19), and having those with the "mark of the beast" drinking the cup of God's wrath (Revelation 14:10). Keep in mind, that that "beast" is Constantine.

"That it will be necessary sometimes to use falsehood as a remedy for the benefit of those who require such a mode of treatment"
{Eusebius. The title for chapter 32 of the twelth book of Evangelical Preparation}
 

Shiranui117

Pronounced Shee-ra-noo-ee
Premium Member
To read church history, is to read the lies of the winners. The church historian Eusebius pleads guilty to lying for the sake of people such as you. Constantine burned the books of Arian, and decreed death to those who were found with such writings.
And Constantine later changed his mind and recalled Arius from exile and instead banished St. Athanasius of Alexandria. Constantine's own son, Constantius, and his grandson, Constantius II, were both Semi-Arians who sought to either completely nullify or weaken the doctrinal decrees of the Council of Nicaea. In 341, for instance, Constantius II convoked the Synod of Antioch which accepted Arius and adopted a Semi-Arian position.

In 380 AD, Theodosius declared the "Nicene Trinitarian Christianity" as the only legitimate Imperial religion.
Yes, but the 55 years between 325 and 380 saw more Arians in the emperor's favor than Orthodox.

I suggest that you do some reading outside of the church library. I suggest the book "Constantine the Great: the man and his times".
I have no need to. The Church has all the primary source documents and the complete historical record. The only reason secular scholars are able to do scholarly work about Church history is because the Church has preserved all these records.

Prior to 380 AD, in the 367, the NT canon was set by a proponent of the false Trinity dogma, Athanasius, who sat at the Nicene Council.
This is incorrect. St. Athanasius of Alexandria was the first to lay out the list of the 27 books of the New Testament that we recognize today, but the Bibles commissioned by Constantine include other books not today found in the New Testament, such as the Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistle of Barnabas and the Epistle of Clement. There was still debate clear into the 500's about what books belonged in the New Testament. The Byzantine Church, for example, doesn't read from the Book of Revelation during the Liturgy because Revelation had not yet been accepted as Scripture in Asia Minor, Greece and Syria. Athanasius made a list of the books to be read in his Egyptian church. It was by no means a definitive list of Scripture for all of Christianity--such a thing would be elusive for centuries afterwards.

Your false Trinity dogma, and your canon, all started with Constantine and his Council of Nicaea.
Wrong again. The Trinity was believed long before Nicaea, and I can provide citations. Nicaea was just where it was firmly defined.

Constantine supported any version which would unify his empire, and he finally settled on the Trinity dogma.
Constantine never really "settled" on any position; he constantly flip-flopped between Orthodoxy and Arianism, even after the Council of Nicaea.

"That it will be necessary sometimes to use falsehood as a remedy for the benefit of those who require such a mode of treatment"
{Eusebius. The title for chapter 32 of the twelth book of Evangelical Preparation}
Source?

"In addition, if any writing composed by Arius should be found, it should be handed over to the flames, so that not only will the wickedness of his teaching be obliterated, but nothing will be left even to remind anyone of him. And I hereby make a public order, that if someone should be discovered to have hidden a writing composed by Arius, and not to have immediately brought it forward and destroyed it by fire, his penalty shall be death. As soon as he is discovered in this offence, he shall be submitted for capital punishment....." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism


— Edict by Emperor Constantine against the Arians[8]
Keep reading the Wikipedia article. Let me help you:

"Although he was committed to maintaining what the church had defined at Nicaea, Constantine was also bent on pacifying the situation and eventually became more lenient toward those condemned and exiled at the council. First, he allowed Eusebius of Nicomedia, who was a protégé of his sister, and Theognis to return once they had signed an ambiguous statement of faith. The two, and other friends of Arius, worked for Arius's rehabilitation.[32]

At the First Synod of Tyre in AD 335, they brought accusations against Athanasius, now bishop of Alexandria, the primary opponent of Arius. After this, Constantine had Athanasius banished since he considered him an impediment to reconciliation. In the same year, the Synod of Jerusalem under Constantine's direction readmitted Arius to communion in AD 336. Arius died on the way to this event in Constantinople. Some scholars suggest that Arius may have been poisoned by his opponents.[32] Eusebius and Theognis remained in the Emperor's favor, and when Constantine, who had been a catechumen much of his adult life, accepted baptism on his deathbed, it was from Eusebius of Nicomedia.[9]
...
Hence, after Constantine's death in 337, open dispute resumed again. Constantine's son Constantius II, who had become Emperor of the eastern part of the Empire, actually encouraged the Arians and set out to reverse the Nicene Creed. His advisor in these affairs was Eusebius of Nicomedia, who had already at the Council of Nicea been the head of the Arian party, who also was made the bishop of Constantinople.

Constantius used his power to exile bishops adhering to the Nicene Creed, especially St Athanasius of Alexandria, who fled to Rome. In 355 Constantius became the sole Emperor and extended his pro-Arian policy toward the western provinces, frequently using force to push through his creed, even exiling Pope Liberius and installing Antipope Felix II.

The third Council of Sirmium in 357 was the high point of Arianism. The Seventh Arian Confession (Second Sirmium Confession) held that both homoousios (of one substance) and homoiousios (of similar substance) were unbiblical and that the Father is greater than the Son. (This confession was later known as the Blasphemy of Sirmium.)

But since many persons are disturbed by questions concerning what is called in Latin substantia, but in Greek ousia, that is, to make it understood more exactly, as to 'coessential,' or what is called, 'like-in-essence,' there ought to be no mention of any of these at all, nor exposition of them in the Church, for this reason and for this consideration, that in divine Scripture nothing is written about them, and that they are above men's knowledge and above men's understanding;[34]"

Even your own sources blatantly refute your false narrative.
 

Shiranui117

Pronounced Shee-ra-noo-ee
Premium Member
The fairy tales of the church, such as the vision of Constantine, being one of Christ and not Sol Invictus, is not supported by the historical record, of Constantine minting a coin 1 year after the vision, with Sol Invictus on the reverse of the coin, fronted with a portrait of Constantine, in the year 313 AD. Of course, the fairy tale version was written by the self proclaimed liar, Eusebius, with regards to the history of the Roman church. But that is all right, the father of lies, needs his supporters. Otherwise, how are you going to get one third of mankind being killed by fire, smoke and sulfur (Revelation 9:19), and having those with the "mark of the beast" drinking the cup of God's wrath (Revelation 14:10). Keep in mind, that that "beast" is Constantine.

"That it will be necessary sometimes to use falsehood as a remedy for the benefit of those who require such a mode of treatment"
{Eusebius. The title for chapter 32 of the twelth book of Evangelical Preparation}
Alright, I found the work you mentioned. Here's chapter 31 (you mistakenly wrote 32) from that work:

[PLATO]
100
'But even if the case were not such as our argument has now proved it to be, if a lawgiver, who is to be of ever so little use, could have ventured to tell any falsehood at all to the young for their good, is there any falsehood that he could have told more beneficial than this, and better able to make them all do everything that is just, not by compulsion but willingly? 'Truth, O Stranger, is a noble and an enduring thing; it seems, however, not easy to persuade men of it.'

Now you may find in the Hebrew Scriptures also thousands of such passages concerning God as though He were jealous, or sleeping, or angry, or subject to any other human passions, which passages are adopted for the benefit of those who need this mode of instruction.


So the "lie" that Eusebius is speaking of here is the lie that God is actually jealous, or sleeping, or angry, or under the sway of any kind of human emotion--which of course He does not have, and so to speak of God in these terms is a lie. Yet the Bible employs this language to encourage us to do what is right and avoid what is evil. It's not about encouraging some grand conspiracy to completely rewrite history, and your attempts to paint St. Eusebius of Caesarea a liar are just silly.

Don't believe me? You can read the whole thing yourself. https://is.muni.cz/el/1421/podzim2012/RLB295/um/Eusebius_of_Caesarea_-_Praeparatio_Evangelica.pdf
 

2ndpillar

Well-Known Member
Alright, I found the work you mentioned. Here's chapter 31 (you mistakenly wrote 32) from that work:

[PLATO]
100
'But even if the case were not such as our argument has now proved it to be, if a lawgiver, who is to be of ever so little use, could have ventured to tell any falsehood at all to the young for their good, is there any falsehood that he could have told more beneficial than this, and better able to make them all do everything that is just, not by compulsion but willingly? 'Truth, O Stranger, is a noble and an enduring thing; it seems, however, not easy to persuade men of it.'

Now you may find in the Hebrew Scriptures also thousands of such passages concerning God as though He were jealous, or sleeping, or angry, or subject to any other human passions, which passages are adopted for the benefit of those who need this mode of instruction.


So the "lie" that Eusebius is speaking of here is the lie that God is actually jealous, or sleeping, or angry, or under the sway of any kind of human emotion--which of course He does not have, and so to speak of God in these terms is a lie. Yet the Bible employs this language to encourage us to do what is right and avoid what is evil. It's not about encouraging some grand conspiracy to completely rewrite history, and your attempts to paint St. Eusebius of Caesarea a liar are just silly.

Don't believe me? You can read the whole thing yourself. https://is.muni.cz/el/1421/podzim2012/RLB295/um/Eusebius_of_Caesarea_-_Praeparatio_Evangelica.pdf

Eusebius quote per Chapter 31 is "XXXI. That it will be necessary sometimes to use falsehood as a remedy for the benefit of those who require such a mode of treatment" That Eusebius was trying to align the gospel with the Gentile Greeks/Romans, is another problem all together. Keep in mind, that Eusebius was the man Friday to the "beast with two horns like a lamb", Constantine. After the "day of distress", nations/Gentiles/Greeks, will "say" "we have inherited nothing but falsehood from our fathers" (Jeremiah 16:19). That "day" is "at the door" (Matthew 24:33).

Eusebius of Caesarea: Praeparatio Evangelica (Preparation for the Gospel). Tr. E.H. Gifford (1903) -- Book 12


Eusebius of Caesarea: Praeparatio Evangelica (Preparation for the Gospel). Tr. E.H. Gifford (1903) -- Book 12
 

2ndpillar

Well-Known Member
This is incorrect. St. Athanasius of Alexandria was the first to lay out the list of the 27 books of the New Testament that we recognize today, but the Bibles commissioned by Constantine include other books not today found in the New Testament, such as the Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistle of Barnabas and the Epistle of Clement. There was still debate clear into the 500's about what books belonged in the New Testament. The Byzantine Church, for example, doesn't read from the Book of Revelation during the Liturgy because Revelation had not yet been accepted as Scripture in Asia Minor, Greece and Syria. Athanasius made a list of the books to be read in his Egyptian church. It was by no means a definitive list of Scripture for all of Christianity--such a thing would be elusive for centuries afterwards.

The canon for the Catholic church was determined per the pagan festival of Easter festal letter, written by Athanasius in 367 AD. There has been no change with regards the Roman church canon. There is no unilateral cannon for all 38,000 different "Christian" sects. 50 copies of a bible were published by Constantine, and there is only one recorded referenced writing for that bible, and it is not part of the present NT Roman Catholic cannon. Constantine died 30 years before the present NT canon was established by Athanasius. If it was up to Luther, you wouldn't have James, Jude, or Revelation. Those books were too anti Pauline (false prophet), and anti daughters of Babylon, although Luther called the Roman church, the "whore of Babylon". No end in sight for double mindedness.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
The host, said to transform into the body of Christ, his actual flesh, and the wine his actual blood.
Why is it round? What does the Bible say about this?
AFAIK, the typical shape of the communion wafer is just custom and isn't because of any doctrinal rule. The only actual rule is that it has to be wheat bread:

1412 The essential signs of the Eucharistic sacrament are wheat bread and grape wine, on which the blessing of the Holy Spirit is invoked and the priest pronounces the words of consecration spoken by Jesus during the Last Supper: "This is my body which will be given up for you. . . . This is the cup of my blood. . . ."
Catechism of the Catholic Church - The sacrament of the Eucharist
 

Shiranui117

Pronounced Shee-ra-noo-ee
Premium Member
Eusebius quote per Chapter 31 is "XXXI. That it will be necessary sometimes to use falsehood as a remedy for the benefit of those who require such a mode of treatment" That Eusebius was trying to align the gospel with the Gentile Greeks/Romans, is another problem all together. Keep in mind, that Eusebius was the man Friday to the "beast with two horns like a lamb", Constantine. After the "day of distress", nations/Gentiles/Greeks, will "say" "we have inherited nothing but falsehood from our fathers" (Jeremiah 16:19). That "day" is "at the door" (Matthew 24:33).

Eusebius of Caesarea: Praeparatio Evangelica (Preparation for the Gospel). Tr. E.H. Gifford (1903) -- Book 12


Eusebius of Caesarea: Praeparatio Evangelica (Preparation for the Gospel). Tr. E.H. Gifford (1903) -- Book 12
Did you even read the chapter? I literally gave you exactly the chapter you provided the title of. The "falsehood" that Eusebius was referring to was the falsehood that God has human emotions. You're attempting to take the title of a chapter, ignore what is actually in said chapter, and distort it to come up with some half-baked conspiracy theory which even your own sources refute.

Honestly, I could understand you reading just the title of the chapter and jumping to conclusions. But the fact that you're still peddling the title of that chapter to support your claim when I gave you the contents of said chapter means that you're positively aliterate--you can read, but you choose not to. And that's me being extremely generous.

The canon for the Catholic church was determined per the pagan festival of Easter festal letter, written by Athanasius in 367 AD.
Then explain the fact that the Coptic Orthodox (AKA the Christians who are from Alexandria and Egypt) still read 1 Clement as part of their wider NT canon? Explain the fact that the Ethiopian Orthodox, the daughter church of the Egyptian Church, have a 35-book New Testament? Explain why the Byzantines didn't even definitively include Revelation in the Bible until the 500's after we had written our church lectionary? You can't just straight-up ignore my point like it didn't happen. Or have you put me on ignore in the last 3 hours?

There has been no change with regards the Roman church canon.
Cool, that's Rome's canon. Rome's Biblical canon is not necessarily the same as everyone else's. The Syriac Pesh.itta canon had 22 books for a long time, and the Coptic canon had 31 books. As I said, the Ethiopian Orthodox have a 35-book New Testament. Rome having a set canon does not mean that everyone else had a set canon. And also, no, Rome didn't definitively close their canon until the Council of Trent in the 1540's, hence the reason Luther felt able to shuffle around the contents of the Bible, taking out books from the OT and wanting to do the same with the NT, even though he ultimately decided against it.

There is no unilateral cannon for all 38,000 different "Christian" sects. 50 copies of a bible were published by Constantine, and there is only one recorded referenced writing for that bible, and it is not part of the present NT Roman Catholic cannon.
Who cares? Christianity has never been based on the Bible alone. The NT was created by the Church under the guidance and authorship of the Apostles and their successors, not the other way around. Christians can and have held the same faith while having different Biblical canons. Antioch and Alexandria are a great example of this.

Constantine died 30 years before the present NT canon was established by Athanasius.
It doesn't matter how many times you repeat blatant falsehoods. It doesn't make them true.

If it was up to Luther, you wouldn't have James, Jude, or Revelation. Those books were too anti Pauline (false prophet), and anti daughters of Babylon, although Luther called the Roman church, the "whore of Babylon". No end in sight for double mindedness.
The reasons that Luther called the Roman Church the whore of Babylon and the reasons you do are two completely different sets of things. Also, if Luther wanted to take things out from the NT, he could have. He decided not to.
 
Last edited:

2ndpillar

Well-Known Member
Then explain the fact that the Coptic Orthodox (AKA the Christians who are from Alexandria and Egypt) still read 1 Clement as part of their wider NT canon? Explain the fact that the Ethiopian Orthodox, the daughter church of the Egyptian Church, have a 35-book New Testament? Explain why the Byzantines didn't even definitively include Revelation in the Bible until the 500's after we had written our church lectionary? You can't just straight-up ignore my point like it didn't happen. Or have you put me on ignore in the last 3 hours?

Your Coptic church, etc., are not the Roman Catholic church. It is the Roman Catholic church who brought in the 367 AD canon, and it is the same today as it was then. Luther didn't have the power to take anything out of the NT canon. And the Protestant church is not built on your succession of leadership, starting with the "worthless shepherd" (Zechariah 11:17), Peter. They rely more on the man of lawlessness (Romans 7:6), Paul, the "staff" called "Favor" (Zechariah 11:10), and his false gospel of grace/cross. And it is Scripture, which refers to your "fathers", as inheriting "nothing but falsehood" (Jeremiah 16:19).

Eusebius fairy tail vision of Milvian Bridge, is proof enough of his falsifying history. That fairy tale is why Spanish monks led the conquistador while holding a cross, to justify killing and enslaving American natives. The message of Sol Invictus was go and conquer under this sign (the sign of the cross), an ancient pagan symbol, and the shape of Constantine's banner, in homage of the sun god, Sol Invictus. The coin produced by Constantine in 313 AD, in honor of Sol Invictus, is proof the actual event.
 
Top