Comments on: If the Catholic Church was a Christian church, why kill and destroy Bibles Bible Translators?

By: Chris

Chris — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 15:31:57 +0000

Catholicism is not Christianity. Catholicism teaches a false gospel of works ( "sacraments") that leads to eternal lake of fire (Galatians 1:6-9). The Vatican has genocidal killed more people than any group in the history of the world.

By: hytekred…

hytekred… — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 15:31:57 +0000

Gospel of John 21:25
"There are also many other things which Jesus did, but if these are described separately, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written."
So I still think all that Jesus taught is contained in the deed?
If you believe in Sola Scriptura, if not the authority of scripture come from? Catholics believe that Holy Scripture is inspired because tradition tells us that it is inspired. What says the Bible is inspired?
BTW, Catholics may not add to the Bible. They created the Bible (ie, books that were canonized in the same). Some 1200 years later, he led the Protestants of the Catholic Bible.
There is so much ignorance in your question, almost not worth addressing. BTW, to be called ignorant is not an insult. There is a difference between ignorance and stupidity, so I assume you are ignorant and I mean that in no way insulting. However, in order that this ignorance does not lead others astray, I think it's worth addressing.
May God help guide you on your journey.

By: WarEagle

WarEagle — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 15:31:57 +0000

The Catholic Church has been around a long time. At that time they have done a lot of things wrong. They have also done much good. No need to paint with a brush the church hundreds of years. Catholics today are good Christian people I can see. They are my brothers and sisters in Christ.
EDIT: I meant what I said. I have great respect for many of the Catholics here. I have no doubt that Christians are saved. I have no doubt that I will see many of them in heaven. I am a Protestant and, specifically, a Pentecostal, but easily could attend a Catholic church. While I disagree with some of their traditions do not have big problems with them. They follow the Bible in all things important.

By: Edge

Edge — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 15:31:57 +0000

William Tinsdale, which certainly is better known by his real name William Tyndale, not killed or executed by the Church, also wrote "The Practyse of Prelates, opposing Henry VIII's divorce on the grounds that it is unscriptural to your After his death meant, that King Henry was a Protestant and the leader of the Anglican Church at this time. Get your story straight.
If the Church in the 1400-1550 era of corrupt and there were characters like "Bloody Mary", who followed King Henry and tried to return England to Catholicism, and there were many murders and sponsored by the corrupt military-backed by a Cardinal, but at no time does this reflects Catholicism today. It's really because of the reform that became more difficult for those who were interested in the interpretation of the Bible, to the point that even theologians and others were banned in his study. This is no longer true to date. Therefore, to say that Catholicism is hiding the truth of the Scriptures of his people, his followers blattant is a lie.
Finally, Rome had nothing to answer, the current pontificated a strong promoter of Theology, studying the Word of God, and the staff who are lay people, like you and me who have opposing views on the interpretation of a verse, better yet to reach their full understanding.
To say that we are idolators, devotees of Mary, the duplication, but there is nothing further to say that the Lord's Prayer, taught us that the Lord Himself for us to repeat as a guide to how we pray to the Father . So the Bible calls a sham.
You are nobody, myself, honestly, I repeat no one, saying that the Church is wrong in their ways, this church is the foundation of Christianity, including his own, the early Christian Church fathers died so you could have something to say anddon't believe in what we believe and therefore do not always criticizing without knowing the facts, starting with the correct spelling of William Tyndale.
Obviously, I think you are right in all his ramblings and supposed fixes, but you do not see the mistakes in his own way.
May God bless you and teach you to judge others is the only one left, Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior.

By: Perhaps I love you more

Perhaps I love you more — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 15:31:57 +0000

Try reading a world best, unbiased source like Wikipedia! It is true that Wiki is discussed too.
Better, how about some encyclopaedia?
A good source I can recommend is to catholic.com, left panel, in Catholic Apologetics.
Could only answer your questions, and prevents him from putting his foot in his mouth.

By: sparta_m

sparta_m — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 15:31:57 +0000

tell me where in the Bible does not mention Sola Scriptura first, and perhaps I will start believing your revisionist history.
ask you questions about Catholics being twisted truths about the Catholic Church as if they were facts, now, please give me a verse from the Bible when in fact referred to "Sola Scriptura".
What do not understand is his determination to turn Catholic Practices.
anyway, not to defend Sola Scriptura. sorry, but the very foundation of their belief, which is Sola Scriptura, it is unbiblical.

By: Complica

Complica — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 15:31:57 +0000

Who are you to judge people?

By: Emmanuel-God is with us!

Emmanuel-God is with us! — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 15:31:57 +0000

Type. Read your history. And learn to spell.
The Catholic Church does not kill Tyndale.
Church of England did.
Seems to have forgotten that all the land of history, where Henry VIII broke away from the Holy See because I wanted to divorce his wife and marry his mistress?
Eh, yes. Declared himself ruler of church and state. Executed Catholics will not renounce their faith and swear allegiance. Stole the church money and church land. Killed several wives. Religious burnt at the stake. You may wish to check the history of Tyburn Tree to find out how the whole world was denied religious freedom in England.
Tyndale was killed for even translating the Bible.
He was killed by printing a document that spoke out against Henry VIII's divorce. Henry killed many people who agree with him. Henry called it treason. Just as when Elizabeth I executed Edmund Campion to say mass.

By: Max Marie, OSF

Max Marie, OSF — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 15:31:57 +0000

This is the reverse of his injury as most likely to ignore the objection to Tinsdale chief or King James' boys. Passages which are translated incorrectly and have a tendency to misinterpret passages such as statues of Mary are proclaimed to be an idol, etc. ..
And as for that much to answer for all parts of Christendom, if honest, must answer for their atrocities and religious wars. I suggest to ignore their own little pet massacres and take a look at the religious wars in Europe as a whole. Most likely, his mark or his immediate predecessor of the mark, has made the same outrageous actions.

By: xxmachin

xxmachin — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 15:31:57 +0000

Catholics rely on the Bible, it simply does not make him an idol by sola scriptura.
Sola Scriptura, by the way, is unbiblical.
Only Scripture refutes "Scripture alone"
Gen. to Rev. - Scripture never says that Scripture is the sole authority of the inerrant Word of God. Writing also requires the use of tradition. This fact alone disproves sola scriptura.
Matt. 28:19, Mark 16:15 - those who preached the Gospel to every creature, but he wrote the Gospel were not less obedient Jesus, his teachings or less.
Matt. 28:20 - "observe everything I have commanded", but as we see in John 20:30, 21:25, Jesus is not all taught in the Scriptures. So there must be things outside of Scripture that we must observe. This refutes the "Bible alone" theology.
Mark 16:15 - Jesus to the apostles to "preach" can not write, and only three apostles wrote. Others who did not write were not less faithful to Jesus, because Jesus gave them no directive to write. There is no evidence in the Bible or elsewhere that Jesus intended the Bible is the sole authority of the Christian faith.
Luke 1:1-4 - Luke acknowledges that the faithful have received the teachings of Christ and his Gospel is written only to "realize the certainty of the teachings he has received." Luke writes to verify the oral tradition already received.
John 20:30, 21:25 - Jesus did many other things not written in the scriptures. These have been preserved through the oral apostolic tradition and are also a part of the deposit of faith.
Acts 8:30-31, Heb. 5:12 - these verses show that we need help in the interpretation of Scripture. We can not infallibly interpret on our own. We need leadership divinely appointed within the Church to teach us.
Acts 15:1-14 - Peter resolves the Church's doctrine on the first question circumcision without referring to the Scriptures.
Acts 17:28 - Paul quotes the writings of pagan poets when he taught at the Aeropagus. Thus, Paul appeals to sources outside of Scripture to teach about God.
1 Cor. 5:9-11 - this verse shows that a letter written before Corinth is equally authoritative but not part of the New Testament canon. Paul is again a call to a source outside of Scripture to teach the Corinthians. This refutes the Scripture itself.
1 Cor. 11:2 - Paul commends the faithful to obey the apostolic tradition, and not just Scripture.
Phil. 4:9 - Paul says that what they have learned and received and heard and seen in me, yeah. There is nothing about obeying Scripture never alone.
Col. 4:16 - this verse shows that a letter written to Laodicea is equally authoritative but not part of the New Testament canon. Paul once again appeals to a source outside the Bible to teach about the Word of God.
1 Thess. 2:13 - Paul says, "when he received the word of God, you've heard of us .." How can the teaching of the Bible first century Christians that the Bible is their only source of infallible teaching, if, at the same time, oral disclosure is provided to them also? Protestants can not pretend that there is an authority (the Bible) while two sources of authority (the Bible and oral disclosure).
1 Thess. 3:10 - Paul wants the Thessalonians to see face to face and supply what is missing. Your letter is not enough.
2 Thess. 2:14 - Paul says that God has called us "through our gospel." What is the fullness of the Gospel?
2 Thess. 2:15 - the Gospel is the fullness of the apostolic tradition, which includes education, whether by word or by letter. Scripture does not say "own letter." The Catholic Church has the fullness of the Christian faith through its rich traditions of Scripture, oral tradition and teaching authority (or Magisterium).
2 Thess 3:6 - Paul teaches us to obey the apostolic tradition. There is no instruction in the Scriptures about obeying the Bible alone (the word "Bible" is not even in the Bible).
1 Tim. 3:14-15 - Paul prefers not to speak and write, and is written only if it is delayed and can not be with Timothy.
2 Tim. 2:2 - Paul says the apostolic tradition is passed on to future generations, but it says nothing about all the traditions they finally committed to the Apostolic Bible.
2 Tim. 3:14 - continue in what you have learned and know from whom I learned cree. Again, this refers to the tradition that lies outside of the Bible.
James 4:5 - James appealed to Scripture, even outside the canon of the Old Testament ( "He yearns jealously over the spirit that He has done …")
2 Peter 1:20 - the interpretation of Scripture is not a question of interpretation. Therefore, it should be a matter of "public" interpretation of the Church. The Divine Word needs a Divine Interpreter. Private trial leads to divisions, and that is why there are 30,000 different Protestant denominations.
2 Peter 3:15-16 - Peter said the letters of Paul are inspired, but not all cards are in the canon of the New Testament. See, eg, 1 Cor. 5:9-10, Col. 4:16. Also, Peter used the word "ignorant" means in school, reflecting the requirement of oral apostolic instruction that comes from the Church.
2 Peter 3:16 - the Scriptures are hard to understand and may be distorted by the ignorant to their destruction. God the Holy Spirit does not guarantee every one of us would infallibly interpret the Scriptures. But this is what Protestants must argue in support of their doctrine of sola scriptura. History and countless divisions in Protestantism disprove it.
1 John 4:1 - again, God teaches us all things to test, test all spirits. Despite what many Protestants argue, God's Word is not always obvious.
1 Sam. 3:1-9 - for example, the Lord spoke to Samuel, but Samuel does not recognize that God is. The Word of God is not self-certification.
1 Kings 13:1-32 - In this story, we see that a man can not discern God's word (the commandment "do not eat") and a prophet of the erroneous word (that God had rescinded his commandment "not eat "). The words of the Bible, despite what many Protestants to defend, are not always clear and understandable. This is why there are 30,000 different Protestant churches and one Holy Catholic Church.
Gen. to Rev. - Protestants must admit that knowing what books belong in the Bible is necessary for our salvation. However, because the Bible is "inspired index," you must look beyond the Bible to see how his books have been selected. This destroys the theory of Sola Scriptura. The canon of Scripture is a revelation of God which is necessary for our salvation, and that comes from outside the Bible. Instead, this revelation was given by God to the Catholic Church, the pinnacle and foundation of truth (1 Tim. 3:15).
Other passages used in support of "Sola Scriptura"
John 5:39 - some non-Catholics use this verse to prove sola scriptura. But when Jesus said that "the Scriptures," was the reprimand that Jews do not believe that He was the Messiah. Jesus says to the Scriptures to verify the Messianic prophecies and oral teaching, and it says "search the Bible alone." Furthermore, from the New Testament was not yet written, the passage is not relevant to the claim of Sola Scriptura Protestants.
John 10:35 - some Protestants also use this verse "the Scripture can not be broken" to demonstrate some of sola scriptura. However, this statement refers to the Scriptures of the Old Testament and has nothing to do with the exclusivity of Scripture and the New Testament.
John 20:31 - Protestants also use this verse to prove sola scriptura. Indeed, Scripture helps them learn to believe in Jesus, but this passage does not say scripture is unique, or even necessary, to be saved by Jesus.
Acts 17:11-12 - here we see the verse "who searched the Scriptures." This refers to the Bereans who used the Old Testament to confirm the oral teachings of the Messiah. The verses do not say the Bereans searched the Scriptures alone (which is what the protesters are trying to prove by quoting this passage). Moreover, the Bereans accepted the oral teaching of Paul as God's word before searching the Scriptures, which disproves the Berean use of sola scriptura.
Acts 17:11-12 - Also, the Bereans were more "noble" or "just ideas" meant that it was more reasonable and less violent than the Thessalonians in Acts. 17:5-9. His biggest fairmindedness because it was his use of Scripture, which Paul directed his listeners to do as was his custom (Acts 17:3).
1 Cor. 4:6 - this is one of the more confusing passages in Scripture. Many scholars believe that the phrase "do not go above the line" was inserted by a translator as an instruction to someone in the translation process. Others say Paul is quoting a proverb with regard to children learning to write follow-up letters. Saying that they are not above the line, it is probably Paul instructs not be arrogant. But even if the sentence is taken literally, to which Paul refers? The Talmud? The Mosaic law? Scriptures of the Old Testament? This proves too much for Protestants, since there is no canon of New Testament at the time Paul wrote this, and the text says nothing about the Bible as the only rule and guide of faith.
Rev. 1:11,19 - non-Catholics sometimes refer to Jesus commands John to write as supporting the theory that the Bible is the only source of Christian faith. Yes, Jesus of John, because John was writing in exile in Patmos and could not preach the Word (which was usual command of Jesus). Moreover, this commandment is limited to the book that John w