Scriptures Cannot be alone... Scripture is clear

[Dogknox]

Nick01You ask... So would you agree then that the teaching of the church is to be measured against the Scriptures, not the other way around?

I reply: NO that would be HERESY! Jesus gave the world a CHURCH with all of his AUTHORITY to TEACH the WORLD!!
Nick01Believing what you believe you are forced to REJECT Jesus' words!

Catholics believe the words of Jesus, believing the words of Jesus: IS BELIEVING IN JESUS! We are Christians because we believe the words of Jesus!

“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

Nick01Do you see it??? “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore GO!!!" Jesus has the AUTHORITY to send his CHURCH OUT to all nations!!!

Do you see it??? "Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing!!"
Nick01Baptizing makes DISCIPLES of ALL NATIONS with the AUTHORITY of God speaking FOR GOD with all of God' AUTHORITY make Disciples!!
Disciples are Jesus' brothers and sisters, Baptism makes God' family!

The AUTHORITY does not stop at the making of DISCIPLES it continues to TEACHING ALL NATIONS!
All of God' authority is given to Jesus Church to TEACH!!!!!!!!! ALL Nations!!!
Nick01Church TEACHES she uses BOOKS, Preaching, Icons, Sacraments etc!!!
Church is the AUTHORITY not a BOOK!

 

[phil112]

That is a denial of the historical record. "evil ways" is hate propaganda, with no verifiable primary source documentation. There have been bad popes, maybe 10, but they stayed in the Church where sinners belong,.............................

You poor blind person. We are talking about the leaders of your church. Did they relinquish their leadership and acknowledge their error? No. On the contrary they and the church tried to justify what they couldn't cover up. It wasn't until the 1900s that this became an issue. You follow a false doctrine and a lie from satan.

Dognox never said Jesus founded a Church based on a book. ..............

Who made dogknox an authority? Do you deny the bible is the word of God? The catholic church doesn't, yet when their false doctrine is bared by it they rely on "oral tradition" of which there is no justification in the bible for. If it is the word of God, it isn't wrong. When something contradicts God's word, that something is wrong. God is truth and truth is immutable. catholics are blinded, willingly, by a pack of ravenous wolves. The pope is no more authoritative than I. Nowhere in the bible does it put one man above all overs. On the contrary, those who are least are greatest. The meek shall inherit the earth. None of that doctrine fits catholicism.

 

[phil112]

Post 203 and 205 dog, still waiting.

 

[Bride]

“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

I figured it out! Once I clean all the junk out of your post, I can then relate to it

And yes, this scripture is very close and personal to my heart, is who I am, what I believe and have been doing and hopefully some more before my time here is finished. It's what I do with my Holy Husband Spirit Jesus

(Rev 22:17)
And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

 

[crossnote]

The only way you know that "Jesus gave us the Church with the Authority to teach"... IS THROUGH THE SCRIPTURES!!

 

[Jackson123]

The foundation of Church is Jesus teaching not man teaching.

Petra not petros


Catholic is antichrist.

Antee in Greek not only mean again'st or oppose, but also mean in the place of Christ.

Catholic put Petros in the place of Petra, Petra is symbol of Christ.

So Catholic put Petros in place of Christ. >>> Antichrist. That why I don't believe Antichrist is Muslim. Muslim oppose Christ but not put pretend to be Christ.

antichristos: antichrist, (one who opposes Christ)​

Original Word: ἀντίχριστος, ου, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: antichristos
Phonetic Spelling: (an-tee'-khris-tos)
Short Definition: antichrist
Definition: antichrist, either one who puts himself in the place of, or the enemy (opponent) of the Messiah.

Is The Church Built on “Petros” or “Petra”

www.trustingodamerica.com/Petra.htm



The word petros for Peter in the Greek is in the masculine gender and the word petrafor the rock is in the feminine gender. Petros and petra are two distinct ...


Petra & Petros

 

[eternally-gratefull]

The only way you know that "Jesus gave us the Church with the Authority to teach"... IS THROUGH THE SCRIPTURES!!

amen, without scripture, anyone can say anything, and we have no way to know if it is from God or satan. Thats why God breathed scripture, to test the spirit of what anyone says, to see if it is from God or not. Scripture is our guide, Not men.

 

[JesusIsAll]

One really must wonder about anybody who would, in any way, demean the power of God's holy word, demean the sufficiency of the gospel of scripture. This seems to me quite evil, when you think about it.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

One really must wonder about anybody who would, in any way, demean the power of God's holy word, demean the sufficiency of the gospel of scripture. This seems to me quite evil, when you think about it.

it is evil, it is Satan's way, if he can defeat the authority of scripture, he can get his word out, and no one can do anything about it.

He has done a good job of that through a church that calls itself Gods church, which does not resemble God at all.

 

[JesusIsAll]

amen, without scripture, anyone can say anything, and we have no way to know if it is from God or satan. Thats why God breathed scripture, to test the spirit of what anyone says, to see if it is from God or not. Scripture is our guide, Not men.

Exactly so. The purpose of scripture is to establish the true, inerrant gospel by written record, as the Bible is replete with warnings of false prophets and false gospels, and, of course, the only way one could know the true from the false would be to have a means of measuring this. The Bible is God's Book, in the first place. I would shudder to tamper with His word or diminish it in any way.

Revelation 22:18-19 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Exactly so. The purpose of scripture is to establish the true, inerrant gospel by written record, as the Bible is replete with warnings of false prophets and false gospels, and, of course, the only way one could know the true from the false would be to have a means of measuring this. The Bible is God's Book, in the first place. I would shudder to tamper with His word or diminish it in any way.

Revelation 22:18-19 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

oh people will give an account for shunning scripture as the sole authority of Gods word.

 

[Dogknox]

dogknox, 1) did Christ okay the killing of saints during the inquisition, or does the catholic church lie? Which is it?

2) You also asked... Show scripture to prove it or acknowledge yourself to be a liar. You didn't respond to what I said about Paul.
Acknowledge that the popes' participation in the inquisition broke that "unbroken" line of authority. Acknowledge the fact that that makes catholic doctrine a lie, since they claim that to this day.

1) You say "SAINTS" were killed!

So I ask: Are you are telling me "The Catharsis and Gnostic's are Christians, are they SAINTS!?
Are you saying; You also believe in TWO Gods!? Caricaturist believe in TWO GODS!!!

FACT: Catharism was a blend of Gnosticism, which claimed to have access to a secret source of religious knowledge, and of Manichaeism, which said matter is evil. The Catharists believed in two gods: the "good" God of the New Testament, who sent Jesus to save our souls from being trapped in matter; and the "evil" God of the Old Testament, who created the material world in the first place. The Catharists’ beliefs entailed serious—truly civilization-destroying—social consequences.

phil112 I point out if Catharism or Gnosticism was to have been established, then your Christianity would be completely different then what you know today!

Catharism scorned Marriage because Christians legitimized sexual relations in marriage, which Catharists identified as the Original Sin.
phil112 are you married??!! If yes then WHY?? Catharism rejects marriage!
In addition; Catharism Taught ritualistic suicide!! Suicide was encouraged!!!!!!

phil112You are saying these people are >SAINTS!!!!?

Historian Henry C. Lea (1825–1909) said: Had Catharism become dominant, or even had it been allowed to exist on equal terms, its influence could not have failed to become disastrous."

I say it right up front... phil112 You are Whack whack whack OH to say Catharist and AGNOSTICS are SAINTS!!!!!!!

I point out the Catholic Church stood up in defense of TRUTH!

Not your church.. Your church does NOT have truth!
Your church has roots back to a man!!!

phil112 Your church MUST reject the words of Jesus to say: "We must restore Jesus' Church!"

You say the Church Jesus established is WRONG??? I say there might have been better ways but back then, this is how they fought against Satan and his lies!!!
I said it before and now repeat it... "The Church is full of sinners" So what??!
It DOES NOT mean the Catholic Church is not holy!

Your second Question 2) makes NO sense; The Unbroken line of Popes is a HISTORICAL DOCUMENTED FACT!!!

SURE.....
Sure there have been some bad popes (very few) SO WHAT!!!!? All men are sinners!!!!!!
Are you saying the Popes are NOT MEN!!!??

I say WAKE UP!!! Do your home work.... You have nonfactual beliefs... You make this stuff up or have fallen for lies taught by others!

 

[Lynx]

Thoughts from scanning this thread:

1. I sure am glad I'm not catholic. Some of the things you folks are saying about them are patently false. I'd never listen to anything you said ever again if you dissed me like that.

2. I sure am glad I'm not in this debate. The way you diss each other is almost as bad as the mud you're slinging at catholics.

3. Someone really, really, REALLY likes to use a lot of fonts, sizes and colors in each post. I can't imagine how long it takes to set all that up. Maybe there's a way to macro it...

 

[Dogknox]

One really must wonder about anybody who would, in any way, demean the power of God's holy word, demean the sufficiency of the gospel of scripture. This seems to me quite evil, when you think about it.

I reply: This is just it.... You reject the words of Jesus then in fact you are rejecting Jesus! You reject the words of Jesus then in fact you CONDEMN yourself!

John 12:48There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; the very words I have spoken will condemn them at the last day.


JesusIsAll Do you see it? "The one who rejects Jesus does NOT accept his words!"
Do you see it? "Condemn yourself by not accepting Jesus words!"

JesusIsAll You are forced to REJECT John 12:48 (above) to say Jesus did not speak the truth... (below)

John 6:53
Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Manand drink his blood, you have no life in you.
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.

QUESTION: Is Jesus' flesh and blood real food and drink?!
QUESTION: "Did Jesus speak the truth"?

I have to say.. JesusIsAll . Condemn yourself if, in any way, you demean the power of God's holy word, demeaning the sufficiency of the gospel of scripture. This seems to me quite evil, when you think about it.

I say: To think; "Jesus left the ONE Church he established", is to REJECT the words of Jesus!
I say: To think; "Men need to RESTORE Jesus' holy body back to Jesus because Jesus established church FAILED", is to DEMEAN the power of God' holy word!

 

[phil112]

.........................

You follow the pope, who usurps authority over Christ. You worship Mary, who your church says was asked if it was okay with her for the spirit to impregnate her. Your church has a long history of killing and sexual perversion, none of which gets stopped until it becomes public and public outrage forces you to end it.
Christ never harmed another person in His life.

Your church claims to have doctrine of which "some we have received transmitted to us in a secret manner from the traditions of the apostles". You claim Peter to be your church founder. Peter, whom denied Christ. Peter, whom Paul "withstood to his face because he was to be blamed". The disciples were explicitly told not to teach the gentiles or Samaritans. Paul alone was chosen explicitly for that duty, yet you deny Pauls authority and favor Peter who was the one disciple that erred most. Your leader advocated killing anyone who disagreed with the catholic church, which is no different from islam.

The list of blasphemy and false doctrine from your church is almost endless. When the word of God convicts catholicism of evil, your leaders claim what they say carries more weight than God's written word. Heresy. Blasphemy. Hellbound. Apt descriptions of catholicism today. You worship satan.

 

[Dogknox]

You follow the pope, who usurps authority over Christ. You worship Mary, who your church says was asked if it was okay with her for the spirit to impregnate her. Your church has a long history of killing and sexual perversion, none of which gets stopped until it becomes public and public outrage forces you to end it.
Christ never harmed another person in His life.

Your church claims to have doctrine of which "some we have received transmitted to us in a secret manner from the traditions of the apostles". You claim Peter to be your church founder. Peter, whom denied Christ. Peter, whom Paul "withstood to his face because he was to be blamed". The disciples were explicitly told not to teach the gentiles or Samaritans. Paul alone was chosen explicitly for that duty, yet you deny Pauls authority and favor Peter who was the one disciple that erred most. Your leader advocated killing anyone who disagreed with the catholic church, which is no different from islam.

The list of blasphemy and false doctrine from your church is almost endless. When the word of God convicts catholicism of evil, your leaders claim what they say carries more weight than God's written word. Heresy. Blasphemy. Hellbound. Apt descriptions of Catholicism today. You worship satan.

I reply: Right off, you follow your man made church and their non Scriptural teaching of "Man does NOT need Church, just faith and scriptures ALONE!" Your churches have their LITTLE Popes, teaching with AUTHORITY; You believe "Scriptures ALONE" because they TAUGHT you it from out side of the scriptures!!! So don't tell me I follow the pope as if you don't follow men yourself!!!!!

Scriptures tell you Jesus gave Peter the KEYS, Jesus gave Peter his AUTHORITY, Peter STRAIGHTEN the other Apostles, Peter feeds Jesus flock cares for the Flock GODS FLOCK: Peter is SHEPHERD! FACT: ALL The early Apostolic Church Fathers are CATHOLICS!!!!

phil112 None, NO not even one early Apostolic Church Father believed in, "Scriptures Alone"! None, NO not even one believed in "Faith ALONE"! These two teaching first appeared with Martin Luther sixteen Hundred years after Jesus established his Holy Catholic Church!
FACT from scriptures: Jesus commissioned his Church with all of God' AUTHORITY to TEACH all nations!

phil112 You follow error you place the salvation of your soul in MEN not in Jesus and his words!!
You are forced to REJECT Jesus and his words to follow men trying to RESTORE Jesus' body back to Jesus!
You are forced to REJECT Jesus and his words to follow men TEACHING "Do NOT trust CHURCH ONLY TRUST MY TEACHING of "Scriptures alone save"!

I honor Mary, I do NOT worship Mary! Worship is for God alone!!!!

phil112 THINK: use your noodle!!! Jesus honors Mary his mother, he MUST honor Mary! God commands "Honor your father & mother!!!
THINK: IF Jesus did not honor Mary he would be sinning, he would NOT be perfect if he sinned; He would NOT be God! Jesus did not worship Mary and neither does his holy body worship her!
We HONOR Mary as BLESSED!!
We HONOR Mary our Mother!

Catholic's HONOR Mary as BLESSED! It is in the scriptures!!!!!!!!!!
LOOK... This PROPHESY can only be fulfilled with the Catholic Church!
46 And Mary said:
“My soul glorifies the Lord
47 and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
48 for he has been mindful
of the humble state of his servant.
From now on all generations will call me blessed


phil112 Do you see it? Mary has a GENEALOGY a traceable family of GENERATIONS!!!
All in Mary's family, all of the GENERATIONS in her family, call her "BLESSED"!

If you are NOT in Mary's family, you are NOT part of the GENERATIONS honoring her as "BLESSED"!
phil112 YOU ARE NOT IN MARY'S FAMILY, you can't be in Mary's genealogy; your roots do not go back two thousand years to Mary and her PROPHESY! The "From now on" tells you I Am right: The Catholic can trace his roots back two thousand years to Mary's scriptural PROPHESY! "From NOW ON all generations will call me blessed!" You cannot only a CATHOLIC has the roots back to this PROPHESY!!!!

phil112 You are NOT in Mary's family >>MARY IS NOT YOUR MOTHER< < Thus Jesus CANNOT be your brother! It is just this simple!
phil112 Jesus is NOT your brother simply because YOU CANNOT be in Mary's family tree of GENERATIONS honoring her as Blessed thus God is NOT; God CANNOT be your father!

For coarse you refuse to HONOR MARY... She cannot be your Mother, you are NOT in Jesus' Holy Family!
You are NOT in Jesus' holy Body God cannot be your father!!

 

[Dogknox]

Exactly so. The purpose of scripture is to establish the true, inerrant gospel by written record, as the Bible is replete with warnings of false prophets and false gospels, and, of course, the only way one could know the true from the false would be to have a means of measuring this. The Bible is God's Book, in the first place. I would shudder to tamper with His word or diminish it in any way.

Revelation 22:18-19 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

I agree with you!!!
JesusIsAll Martin Luther ADDED the word "ALONE" to the book Of Romans! He added the word so it would read..."..live by faith ALONE"!

17For in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed—a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith. (ALONE)”

THINK: Even Martin Luther could not find scriptures to back up his new Teaching!!! You would think if his teaching was biblical, he would have left behind a list of scriptures to back up his new teaching: Even the author of this new teaching; "Faith ALONE saves" had to reject the scriptures to teach it! Martin Luther was going to remove the Epistle of James because James taught the exact opposite to him! He relented when it was pointed out "James is always mentioned second to the Apostle Peter"!

JesusIsAll Scriptures are very clear: They tell you, from OUT of the Church will come heretics: FALSE TEACHERS!

LOOK...
2 Peter 2:1 But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves.2 Many will follow their depraved conduct and will bring the way of truth into disrepute.

Martin Luther the author of "Faith & Scriptures ALONE" was a Catholic Priest, he was AMONG Catholics!
JesusIsAll Clearly this PROPHESY cannot work in the reverse, it cannot work in the other direction! The Catholic Church DID NOT come from Among Martin Luther!
This >SCRIPTURE< PROPHESY PROVES BEYOND ALL DOUBT Luther and all of the De-FORMERS; Luther's Prodigy; all who believes the teaching: "Man does not need church, just Faith & Scriptures ALONE" are FALSE TEACHERS!

JesusIsAll This Prophesy PROVES BEYOND ALL DOUBT, the WAY of Truth can ONLY be the Holy Catholic Church! PROVES BEYOND ALL DOUBT all who place the salvation of their souls in Martin Luther's the "False Teacher" have placed their salvation in Heresies!

Also proving all churches with roots back to the "De-Formation" cannot be "The Way Of Truth"!

 

[kepha]

I'm really sorry if you feel like my post ignored most of your post. I tried very hard to deal with the detail of what you posted. I would appreciate it if you would show me where exactly I got it wrong, because a one par dismissal of my ENTIRE post doesn't actually foster learning. I'm particularly disappointed about your seeming unwillingness to deal with the actual Reformation conception of sola scriptura - I gather from the rest of your post that you are still effectively arguing a straw man, but I can't be sure, because you haven't dealt with the particulars.

How about just pick one thing - show me how I've abused what Athanasius wrote in the Letter to Serapion, for instance. No need for a sprawling post - just start with that one point, and we can move from there.

In a similar vein, following up a post about how I've ignored your post with a copy paste from another website is similarly unhelpful. A post from elsewhere can't possibly deal with what I actually wrote. Everything I've written, barring specific small quotes, has been meeting writing my own words to deal with the particulars of what you have written. I would appreciate a return response that at least attempts to do that - a pre written response simply cannot do that.

I'm not going to respond in detail to the pasted section, as it is not directly relevant to the issues we are already considering. I will throw out one thought, which may perhaps crystalise our differences and allow us to focus in on some of the issues. The article you have shared focuses on the issue of the canon, and that the church was needed to select the canon, and "God is able to (and indeed does) protect human beings from error insofar as they make binding claims about the biblical canon".

My question to you is this - at which point was a 'binding' claim about the biblical canon first made?

First, Anasthasius, then your last question .

Anasthasius:
"The Church has not just recently been given order and statutes. They were faithfully and soundly bestowed on it by the Fathers. Nor has the faith only just been established, but it has come to us from the Lord through His disciples. May what has been preserved in the Churches from the beginning to the present day not be abandoned in our time; may what has been entrusted into our keeping not be embezzled by us. Brethren, as custodians of God's mysteries, let yourselves be roused into action on seeing all this despoiled by others."
PG XXVII, col. 219.
So was St. Athanasius a "true Protestant," as ...some claim?
The Athanasius who believed that a Christian could lose his salvation through mortal sin ?
(cf. Discourses Against the Arians 3, 25)

The Athanasius who venerated Mary as "the Mother of God" ?
(Greek: theotokos; cf. Treatise on the Incarnation of the Word, 8)

The Athanasius who believed in Mary's perpetual virginity (cf. Discourses Against the Arians II, 70)?

The Athanasius who believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist (Sermon to the Newly Baptized)?

If indeed Athanasius can be called a Protestant, then the word "Protestant" has no meaning at all.
ConstantinesRant: "Ancient Baptists" and Other Myths

Second question. Off the top of my head, short answer: the North African councils (Hippo and Carthage) submitted the list of books to be in the Bible, as the canons read: "...to the Transmarine Church..." meaning Rome. It was them made binding on all Christians by Pope Damascus.

The Canon was fixed in the 4th Century when Pope St. Damasus blessed the findings of the Council of Rome in 382. This was reaffirmed in his letter on the Canon to the Bishops in Asia Minor in 405. In 418, the canons of the 16 North African Councils were declared official Church teaching by the Pope. In 787, Nicea II reaffirmed the authority of these councils. In 1483, Pope Eugenius wrote the Letter to the Jacobites as the closing act of the Council of Florence and there he affirmed the Canon of Hippo. St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Ambrose, St. Gregory the Great, St. Albertus Magnus and all of the major fathers of the Middle Ages affirmed the Canon Hippo. Yet there are still those ignorant enough that think Trent decided the canon.

"If any one shall say, or shall believe, that other Scriptures, besides those which the Catholic Church has received, are to be esteemed of authority, or to be venerated, let him be anathema."
Council of Toledo, Canon 12 (A.D. 400).

The Catholic Church assuredly does not claim it is "superior" to the Bible; ( a prevailing myth in this forum) only that an authoritative Christian tradition and institutional Church was necessary to establish and proclaim the canon of Scripture.

he Holy Bible teaches that it is inspired and infallible and inerrant, in many places, both directly and indirectly. What it doesn't provide, however, is its own canon (list of books), or sola Scriptura (the notion that it is the only infallible authority). Simply put: Scripture is what it is. 1 Timothy and other passages clearly teach inerrancy and inspiration. The Catholic Church merely acknowledges what is already (by its very nature) Scripture, or inspired revelation from God; it doesn't make it so.

The exact relationship of Scripture, Church, and Tradition in Catholic thinking is commonly misunderstood; it is often referred to as the "three-legged stool" of Catholic authority. We believe in faith that the three don't and won't conflict. They are viewed as pieces of a whole, just as Protestants (like Catholics) believe in faith that the Bible doesn't contradict itself, and is a harmonious, coherent whole, all the while devoting entire books to supposed "Bible difficulties" that present a challenge to many readers and believers.

The Bible is central and primary in Catholicism as well, but not exclusively authoritative - it is not isolated, nor can it even logically be so, because the Bible itself points to Tradition and the Church as authoritative (see, e.g., the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15); it never teaches that it alone is the Christian's sole ultimate authority.

Objection​

If this is so, why do Catholics often act as if there would have been no Bible without the Catholic Church? Doesn't this imply that they think their church is above the Bible and superior to it? The Protestant position makes more sense because it places churches and traditions beneath Scripture. This seems obvious because the Bible is inspired and infallible, and men and traditions (which make up churches) are fallible and quite prone to error. So how can it be otherwise?

Reply to Objection​

It doesn't follow at all that Catholics are placing Church above Scripture, in simply pointing out that human authority was needed in order to determine the canon. An analogy or comparison might be in order, to further explain this. It is also true that the Bible must be properlyinterpreted. Protestants, to their credit, place a huge emphasis on learning to study the Bible wisely and intelligently (the sciences of exegesis and hermeneutics). Just because learning and study are needed to correctly read the Bible and to attain to truth in theology, doesn't mean that, therefore, the Bible did not already contain truth, or that human interpretation is "higher" than "God-breathed" biblical inspiration.

Likewise, it was necessary for human church councils to decide on the specific books that were to be included in the biblical canon. This doesn't imply in the least that the councils (let alone the Church) are above Scripture. Both the Bible and theological truth remain what they are at all times. But God is able to (and indeed does) protect human beings from error insofar as they make binding claims about the biblical canon. Catholics believe that God (the Holy Spirit: John 14-16) willed to protect the Church from error, and that He is certainly capable of doing so, because He can do anything.

First Vatican Council (1870):

These the Church holds to be sacred and canonical; not because, having been carefully composed by mere human industry, they were afterward approved by her authority; not because they contain revelation, with no admixture of error; but because, having been written by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God for their author, and have been delivered as such to the Church herself.

(Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, chapter II; emphasis added)

Second Vatican Council (1962-1965):

The divinely-revealed realities which are contained and presented in the text of sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. For Holy Mother Church relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that they were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (cf. Jn. 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:19-21; 3:15-16), they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.

(Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation [Dei Verbum], Chapter III, 11; emphasis added)​

 

[Jackson123]

[h=3]Waldensian Christian have the bible before Catholic. (no later than AD 157)

Keith Hunt - The New Testament Translation - A History #5 ...[/h]www.keithhunt.com/Nt_tran5.html

The Bible as the Waldenses preserved it, and what the Roman church tried to do. ...which he considers a period early enough for the enquirer after apostolical .... The LatinBible, the Italic, was translated from the Greek NOT LATER than 157

 

[Dogknox]

Waldensian Christian have the bible before Catholic. (no later than AD 157)

Keith Hunt - The New Testament Translation - A History #5 ...

www.keithhunt.com/Nt_tran5.html



The Bible as the Waldenses preserved it, and what the Roman church tried to do. ...which he considers a period early enough for the enquirer after apostolical .... The LatinBible, the Italic, was translated from the Greek NOT LATER than 157

Jackson123 Your source is WRONG!!!
All you have is your wishes and nefarious schemes in your fight against Jesus his One, Holy Catholic Apostolic Body!

Waldenses (WALDENSIANS), an heretical sect which appeared in the second half of the twelfth century and, in a considerably modified form, has survived to the present day.

NAME AND ORIGIN.—The name was derived from Waldes their founder and occurs also in the variations of Valdesii, Vallenses. Numerous other designations were applied to them; to their profession of extreme poverty they owed the name of "the Poor"; from their place of origin, Lyons, they were called "Leonistae"; and frequently the two ideas were combined in the title "Poor Men of Lyons". Their practice of wearing sandals or wooden shoes (sabots) caused them to be named "Sandaliati", "Insabbatati", "Sabbatati", "Sabotiers". Anxious to surround their own history and doctrine with the halo of antiquity, some Waldenses claimed for their churches an Apostolic origin. The first Waldensian congregations, it was maintained, were established by St. Paul who, on his journey to Spain, visited the valleys of Piedmont. The history of these foundations was identified with that of primitive Christendom as long as the Church remained lowly and poor. But in the beginning of the fourth century Pope Sylvester was raised by Constantine, whom he had cured of leprosy, to a position of power and wealth, and the Papacy became unfaithful to its mission. Some Christians, however, remained true to the Faith and practice of the early days, and in the twelfth century a certain Peter appeared who, from the valleys of the Alps, was called "Waldes". He was not the founder of a new sect, but a missionary among these faithful observers of the genuine Christian law, and he gained numerous adherents. This account was, indeed, far from being universally accredited among the Waldenses; many of them however, for a considerable period accepted as founded on fact the assertion that they originated in the time of Constantine. Others among them considered Claudius of Turin (d. 840), Berengarius of Tours (d. 1088), or other such men who had preceded Waldes, the first representatives of the sect. The claim of its Constantinian origin was for a long time credulously accepted as valid by Protestant historians. In the nineteenth century, however, it became evident to critics that the Waldensian documents had been tampered with. As a result the pretentious claims of the Waldenses to high antiquity were relegated to the realm of fable.