Originally posted by galveston75
No burdens at all.
But as an example Jesus made it crystal clear that he is the "only" way and "only" one to whom we can approach God his Father in prayer. “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you ask anything in my name, I will do it.” John 14:6, 14, Acts 4:12.
But Catholics have a different vie ...[text shortened]... e truth is realy simple and clear and not filled with man made burdens and silly dogma.

No burdens at all.

Except the prohibition on blood transfusions.

But as an example Jesus made it crystal clear that he is the "only" way and "only" one to whom we can approach God his Father in prayer.

Catholics agree with this. No need to discuss further.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]No burdens at all.

Except the prohibition on blood transfusions.

But as an example Jesus made it crystal clear that he is the "only" way and "only" one to whom we can approach God his Father in prayer.

Catholics agree with this. No need to discuss further.[/b]

Well if you have no faith in God or the resurrection or not wanting to follow his commands, the yes it would be a real burden I would think by ones like yourself.
And yes the Catholics do pray to Mary and Peter and all the Saint's for help and to have them represent you in your behalf to God. You can deny and twist that how ever you want but that is not praying thru Jesus "ONLY" as he said to do. A complete and clear rejection of Jesus's own words.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Sure. The NT is not something that was given to the early church. It clearly emerged quite some time into the period of the early church. Mark perhaps was 60CE; John may have been as late as 90-100CE. Matthew and Luke are generally located in between, almost universally believed to have been sometime after 70CE. The Pauline letters are generally presumed to ...[text shortened]... text of the early church and was separated from apocryphal works on the authority of the church.

You made the following statement which is not true:

"the church existed sometime before the Scripture even existed"

What was the purpose of the "Scribes"? What was Jesus referring
to when He said, "It is written..."? The "Scripture of truth" is also
mentioned in Daniel 10:21.

But I will shew thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth:
and there is none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael
your prince. (KJV)

When dating the New Testament books you used "perhaps was,
may have been, believed to have been, and perhaps as late as"
indicating, correctly, that the dates were guesses. The date the
churches began is also a guess; but obviously. they had some
scripture already and added others later.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You made the following statement which is not true:

"the church existed sometime before the Scripture even existed"

What was the purpose of the "Scribes"? What was Jesus referring
to when He said, "It is written..."? The "Scripture of truth" is also
mentioned in Daniel 10:21.

But I will shew thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth:
a also a guess; but obviously. they had some
scripture already and added others later.

the ancient Hebrews had orders like the Masorettes, who were the custodians of the ancient text for millennia, why Conrau has not included these i do not know.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You made the following statement which is not true:

"the church existed sometime before the Scripture even existed"

What was the purpose of the "Scribes"? What was Jesus referring
to when He said, "It is written..."? The "Scripture of truth" is also
mentioned in Daniel 10:21.

But I will shew thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth:
a also a guess; but obviously. they had some
scripture already and added others later.

What was the purpose of the "Scribes"? What was Jesus referring
to when He said, "It is written..."? The "Scripture of truth" is also
mentioned in Daniel 10:21.

Obviously the texts of the Old Testament pre-existed the early church. A canon did not. There were clearly many Hebraic texts claiming religious significance and used in a liturgical setting. The Septuaginist, a Greek translation, was probably the first attempt to make a canon, but Protestants would obviously say that it is the wrong canon. This is why, for example, Catholics and Protestants still have disagreements about the canon of the Old Testament, whether for example to include Maccabees. There are also some old Oriental churches, the Ethiopian church which has additional books.

Obviously when Daniel refers to the 'Scripture of Truth', this cannot mean yet the whole Scripture as we know today. Most of the canon did not even exist at that time.

When dating the New Testament books you used "perhaps was,
may have been, believed to have been, and perhaps as late as"
indicating, correctly, that the dates were guesses. The date the
churches began is also a guess; but obviously. they had some
scripture already and added others later.

Well, obviously there is some speculation involved but the point is simply that the church existed before Scripture. Jesus did not hand it down to them; Scripture was clearly not disseminated throughout the whole church when it was written (Luke clearly went to the community of Theophilus; Paul's letters were addressed to particular communities); and finally, these Scriptures were not collected into one book until some centuries later. The Scripture is a product of the Church's efforts over many centuries.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]What was the purpose of the "Scribes"? What was Jesus referring
to when He said, "It is written..."? The "Scripture of truth" is also
mentioned in Daniel 10:21.

Obviously the texts of the Old Testament pre-existed the early church. A canon did not. There were clearly many Hebraic texts claiming religious significance and used in a litur ...[text shortened]... uries later. The Scripture is a product of the Church's efforts over many centuries.[/b]

What I am saying is that scripture existed before Jesus was
born. Jesus was reading from scripture when He read from
the book of Isaiah. The church was not formed until after
the resurrection of Jesus. I agree that the complete text
as we have it today was not completed until after the church
was formed. But the church always had some scripture to
read. Your dates for the new testament books are way too late.
Luke was the last of the Gospels and had to have been written
before 70 A.D when the temple in Jerusalem was destroyed by
the Romans. The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and John were
all written within 5 years after the crucifixion of Jesus. That is,
no later than 36 A.D.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]God's Word stands alone and requires no man or man made institution to preserve it.

Well, I think it's an idea that leads dangerously to fundamentalism when Scripture is separated from its human origins. I think this is one advantage of the Catholic Church's position because, for Catholics, the Church came first and the Church authored and collect ...[text shortened]... e quite comfortable with recognising the historical and social dimensions to its composition.[/b]

All scripture is given by inspiration of God,.. 2 Tim. 3:16a

The church came first? Before what? God's Word?

God's Word has it's origin in man? Does man speak for God?

Fundamentalism has been hijacked by extremist who say and do not. Christian fundamentalism originated in the early 20th century and was developed by Bible believing Christians as a way to combat the emergence of false doctrine.

"...the Church authored and collected the Scripture..."

Are you so ignorant? The scripture was written by 40 men over a period of 1600 years who were inspired by God to write what they wrote. God Himself is the author and originator of His own Word. God is also responsible for the preservation of His Word through time.

It's so simple even a child can comprehend the fundamentality of it.

Originally posted by RJHinds
What I am saying is that scripture existed before Jesus was
born. Jesus was reading from scripture when He read from
the book of Isaiah. The church was not formed until after
the resurrection of Jesus. I agree that the complete text
as we have it today was not completed until after the church
was formed. But the church always had some scripture to
...[text shortened]... ere
all written within 5 years after the crucifixion of Jesus. That is,
no later than 36 A.D.

What I am saying is that scripture existed before Jesus was
born. Jesus was reading from scripture when He read from
the book of Isaiah. The church was not formed until after
the resurrection of Jesus.

Well, obviously. But you missed an important distinction I made earlier. Certainly there were scriptures before the existence of the church but no single, canonical and authoritative scroll which could be called Scripture.

Your dates for the new testament books are way too late.
Luke was the last of the Gospels and had to have been written
before 70 A.D when the temple in Jerusalem was destroyed by
the Romans. The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and John were
all written within 5 years after the crucifixion of Jesus. That is,
no later than 36 A.D.

On what basis? No serious biblical scholars puts Luke last nor would anyone suggest that any of the gospels were written five years after Jesus' death.

Originally posted by josephw
[b]All scripture is given by inspiration of God,.. 2 Tim. 3:16a

The church came first? Before what? God's Word?

God's Word has it's origin in man? Does man speak for God?

Fundamentalism has been hijacked by extremist who say and do not. Christian fundamentalism originated in the early 20th century and was developed by Bible believing Christians ...[text shortened]... Word through time.

It's so simple even a child can comprehend the fundamentality of it.[/b]

The church came first? Before what? God's Word?

Yes.

God's Word has it's origin in man? Does man speak for God?

I guess so. Do you deny that the Scriptures were written by men?

Are you so ignorant? The scripture was written by 40 men over a period of 1600 years who were inspired by God to write what they wrote. God Himself is the author and originator of His own Word. God is also responsible for the preservation of His Word through time.

See my comments above.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]The church came first? Before what? God's Word?

Yes.

God's Word has it's origin in man? Does man speak for God?

I guess so. Do you deny that the Scriptures were written by men?

Are you so ignorant? The scripture was written by 40 men over a period of 1600 years who were inspired by God to write what they wrote. God Himself is th ...[text shortened]... also responsible for the preservation of His Word through time.

See my comments above.[/b]

Who do you believe? Man or God?

If you think the scripture is of human origin, then you are hopelessly deluded, and may just be reprobate in your mind.

After all you're a Catholic. Been there, done that. You obviously didn't bother to read my post. You asked a question to which the answer appeared before your eyes in my post. You must be blind too.

The Catholic church is a scourge on the earth and is the forerunner of the harlot of Revelation. You are an automaton of that system.

Originally posted by josephw
Who do you believe? Man or God?

If you think the scripture is of human origin, then you are hopelessly deluded, and may just be reprobate in your mind.

After all you're a Catholic. Been there, done that. You obviously didn't bother to read my post. You asked a question to which the answer appeared before your eyes in my post. You must be blind too.
...[text shortened]... earth and is the forerunner of the harlot of Revelation. You are an automaton of that system.

After all you're a Catholic.

No, I'm not.

The Catholic church is a scourge on the earth and is the forerunner of the harlot of Revelation. You are an automaton of that system.

Reading Jack Chick of late?

Originally posted by josephw
Who do you believe? Man or God?

If you think the scripture is of human origin, then you are hopelessly deluded, and may just be reprobate in your mind.

After all you're a Catholic. Been there, done that. You obviously didn't bother to read my post. You asked a question to which the answer appeared before your eyes in my post. You must be blind too.
...[text shortened]... earth and is the forerunner of the harlot of Revelation. You are an automaton of that system.

Good comments and I think Conrau K is an athiest if I remember correctly. Kind of strange as he seems to fight so much for the Catholic faith.

Originally posted by josephw
GAG CHOKE SPASM

The Catholic religion is bogus. And so is all the other denominations. I'm a huge iconoclast. I hate religion. Religion drags a man away from God. I can't stand pontificators of all stripes.

God's Word stands alone and requires no man or man made institution to preserve it.

It takes a man/woman to comprehend it though. (Even on a theoretical level)

Seems some of you christians like to have one foot on either side of the fence, depnding on whatever suits you at the time.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]What I am saying is that scripture existed before Jesus was
born. Jesus was reading from scripture when He read from
the book of Isaiah. The church was not formed until after
the resurrection of Jesus.

Well, obviously. But you missed an important distinction I made earlier. Certainly there were scriptures before the existence of the c ...[text shortened]... st nor would anyone suggest that any of the gospels were written five years after Jesus' death.[/b]

The biblical scholars you are getting your dates from are not
Christians. They want to discredit the Holy Bible by placing
late dates on the writings from scripture. They have done it
with the Old Testament as much as they could. Most Christians
believe these late dates because they don't know any better.
I believe, in your statement of the dates of the books, you used
one of their common phrases, "may have been as late as" never
"as early as". They can push all of John's writings back because
he lived so long. Matthew and James are considered by most to
have been written first, but their dates are usually given between
45 - 50 A.D. That would be 14 -19 years after the crucifixion of
Jesus before anything was written about him. Does that seem
reasonable? Can we really trust their memory and accuracy?
This is why the doubters want late dates.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The biblical scholars you are getting your dates from are not
Christians.

I suppose you mean not 'True Christians©'.

Can you tell us what True Christian biblical scholars you get your information from? This is the first I have heard of such early dates.

I take your claim that most Christians "don't know any better" to be somewhat of an insult to most Christians - but I guess that is what you intended.