VIRGIN MARY

Do you understand what you post and read??

All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."

There is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church. "....calls to Catholic unity," means?? It means without the Catholic Church there is no salvation.
DHK

 

DHK,

please, read it ten times if needed. What it says is the following: If your conscience is clear in believing that the Catholic Church isn't necessary then you are OK. But if you knew that the Catholic Church is necessary and you refuse to enter or to stay in it then you would be in trouble

 

Yes, Jasonik.
The Catholic Church contradicts itself in many places. It even says in its own Catechism that Muslims are a saved people. What heresy is that!
DHK

 

Do you believe that as a Catholic I can be saved?

 

I was a Catholic, and I got saved. Then I saw the contradictions between the Bible and the Catholic religion. I had a choice to make. Either obey God and leave the Catholic Church, or disobey God and remain in the Catholic Church. Continual disobedience is a mark of an unbeliever.

Jesus said
John 8:31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;
DHK

 

DKH,

Let me thry another approach.

Church is a community of believers, so I will use community of believers and not the word church because when church is used people tend to think of a building or institution.

Jesus died on the cross of the sins of the whole world.

We proclaim, Lamb of God (Jesus) you take away the sins of the world have mercy on us.

We also proclaim, Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.

However, we who live now were not present during the time of the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Without the community of believers who recorded what happened 2000 years ago, we would have no record or knowledge of what happened.

The community of believers made it possible for all generations to know the gospel message of Christ.

Therefore, without the community of believers passing on the faith we would not have discovered the means of salvation.

This is what is meant by outside of the community of believers there is no salvation. It does not imply that the community of believers is what saves a person but rather it's the community of believers which proclaims and spreads the gospel message which makes it possible for all people to know of God's love and sacrifice for us.

 

There are two things wrong with this approach.
1. The Catholic definition of "church" always means "the Catholic church" to the exclusion of all others, resulting in a horrible heresy.
2. The underlying word for church in the Bible is ekklesia, meaning "assembly," which always refers to a local church, and never to a an organizational hierarchy such as the Catholic Church.

Your last statement is entirely false. God gave us the Word of God. It was given to us entirely apart from the Catholic Church. It had nothing to do with the Catholic Church. In fact through the ages the Catholic Church tried to destroy it not preserve it. Find out what happened to William Tyndale, and his Bible.

These communities of believers were independent Baptist churches that have existed in every age outside of the Catholic Church. They have existed before the Catholic was established in the fourth century even from the time of the Apostles, though by different names. Churches are communities of regenerated baptized believers, independent of one another. Such was the case in the New Testament and in the early centuries.

But that is not what is said is it? Salvation is through Christ alone. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved. It is by faith and faith alone that one is saved. It is through the preaching of the cross, not the church. I was saved entirely outside of the Catholic Church, in fact outside of any church. The Catholic Church is apostate. There is no salvation in the Catholic Church.
DHK

 

The original Christian church, and the true Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox, affirm that the RCC are schismatics and heretics. If the RCC are right about one Church, the RCC are in big trouble as there is no salvation outside the Orthodox Church.

 

No there were not churches independent of each other and had their own rules in the NT.

Yes, there were churches in many cities but they were they same, ran the same, had the same doctrine, etc.

The very first Church Council is recorded in the Bible. A Church council is usually a reaction as opposed to an action.

The scriptures do not support independent churches. Scripture shows us an example, with the coming together of the leaders of the early Christian churches at the first Church council in Jerusalem, described in Acts 15. Here, a decision is made, for all the churches, that Gentile converts need not undergo the Old Testament rite of circumcision. This shows the churches working together as a unified body. A proclamation was made for all. Individual, independent churches did not vote on the matter. No one could opt not to obey the council.

In fact, the notion of independent churches “doing their own thing” was harshly condemned by St. Paul in his letter to the Corinthians.

For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there is quarrelling among you, my brethren. What I mean is that each one of you says, “I belong to Paul,” or “I belong to Apolos,” or “I belong to Cephas,” or “I belong to Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? (1 Cor. 1:11-13)

No, Christ cannot be divided. Christ taught that there should be one fold and one shepherd (Jn. 10:16). In fact it was His prayer to the Father that, “they may be one, as we are one” (Jn. 17:17-23). The situation Paul condemns in his letter to the Corinthians sounds very much like the situation in this age where independent Baptist congregations split into increasingly more independent congregations over a charismatic preacher or a subtle difference in scriptural interpretation. This is not the Church as founded by Christ.

Some believe that the NT is to be the only rule and guide of faith and life, based on 2 Tim. 3:15-17 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

Notice here that Paul nowhere states that scripture alone is to be the rule of Christian faith.

Paul mentions the scriptures that Timothy knew from his childhood. We know that the various books comprising the New Testament were written between 40 and 100 AD (or later, taking into account some disagreement among scholars), and not compiled into a single, official canon until the late fourth century. Therefore the only scriptures Timothy could have known in his childhood would have been the Jewish Scriptures, and more specifically, the Septuagint version that was in use by the Greek speaking Jews of Palestine (that included the seven duetero-canonical books that Protestants label the “Apocrypha”). Paul is talking about the Old Testament!
The fact of the matter is that the original Christians could not have based their faith solely upon the New Testament because for them the “New Testament” as such did not even exist. Its books were still being written, and its compilation was centuries off.

The first person on record to mention the “Catholic Church” was not some medieval theologian, but a student of the apostle John, the second bishop of Antioch after Peter, a man named St. Ignatius. Ignatius died a martyr’s death in Rome in 107 AD. Before he died he wrote a series of letters to other Christian churches. These writings provide for us the most complete and accurate account of the first century Church that we have, so we will be referring to them often. In them, we find the first recorded example of the Church being called Catholic, which means “universal.”

Do you think the completed Bible just dropped out of the sky?

Lets look at the canon of scriptures of the NT from several sources:

Great site 315 AD: Athenasius, the Bishop of Alexandria, identifies the 27 books of the New Testament which are today recognized as the canon of scripture.

Christian Youth Resources
The official recognition of these books came first from Athanasius in 367 AD and a Council in 397 AD at Carthage recognised not just which books but the current order.


Godandscience
125 A.D. The New Testament manuscript which dates most closely to the original autograph was copied around 125 A.D, within 35 years of the original. It is designated "p 52" and contains a small portion of John 18. (The "p" stands for papyrus.)
200 A.D. Bodmer p 66 a papyrus manuscript which contains a large part of the Gospel of John.
200 A.D. Chester Beatty Biblical papyrus p 46 contains the Pauline Epistles and Hebrews.
225 A.D. Bodmer Papyrus p 75 contains the Gospels of Luke and John.
250-300 A.D. Chester Beatty Biblical papyrus p 45 contains portions of the four Gospels and Acts.
350 A.D. Codex Sinaiticus contains the entire New Testament and almost the entire Old Testament in Greek. It was discovered by a German scholar Tisendorf in 1856 at an Orthodox monastery at Mt. Sinai.
350 A.D. Codex Vaticanus: {B} is an almost complete New Testament. It was cataloged as being in the Vatican Library since 1475.


As you can see, I gave you other sources that aren't Catholic

 

No there were not churches independent of each other and had their own rules in the NT.

Yes, there were churches in many cities but they were they same, ran the same, had the same doctrine, etc.</font>[/QUOTE]Did they? The Corinthian Church was the most carnal church at the time, and unaffiliated with any other church. They even denied the doctrine of the resurrection (a problem that no other church had (1Cor.15). Other churches had other problems. 1Cor.7:1 indictes that the first epistle was written specific to the Corinthian Church in answer to the questions that they had written to Paul in another letter.

Paul went on three missionary journeys, and in those three missionary journeys established over one hundred independent churches. There was no denomination. You can't find the word or even the concept of denomination in the Bible.

What was the pattern of the Apostle Paul? Look at Scripture, not man-made Catholic tradition.

Acts 14:21-23 And when they had preached the gospel to that city, and had taught many, they returned again to Lystra, and to Iconium, and Antioch,
22 Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God.
23 And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.

In every city they went they carried out the Great Commission (Mat.28:19,20): evangelizing, discipling, baptizing, and teaching them all things. They organized them into local churches. Then they appointed one of the more mature believers who felt called to the ministry as the pastor of the church. Each and every church was independent of the other. There is nothing to say that any of these churches were connected to the others.

Although this council was held at the church at Jerusalem where James was the pastor, it was not a church council per se. It was a council where the Apostles presided and the Apostles had the final say. It was upon the advice on the experiences of Paul and Peter that the final decision was made by James, the pastor of the church. The decision was made because of the heresy being spread by the heretical Judaizing teachers that followed Paul wherever he went.

Paul tries to settle disputes in that one particular church who had that specific problem. What has that got to do with other churches. This supports the notion of independent churches. The problem works in favor of independent churches not against it. He was addressing the problems specific to the independent Baptist church at Corinth, however carnal it may have been.

Paul was teaching the Corinthian church that Christ was not to be divided, not any other church. He addressed this church only for this problem. He addressed other churches according to their needs. Every church had their own needs. When he addressed the church at Thessalonica, he addressed them about the Second Coming, and the resurrection of those that had gone on before them. Each independent church had their own specific problems which Paul addressed. They were not connected one to another. They were independent each from the other. The church in Jerusalem was in Judea; but the church in Corinth was in Greece. What possible connection could they have with each other? FYI, they did not have the internet.

[QUOTE}Some believe that the NT is to be the only rule and guide of faith and life, based on 2 Tim. 3:15-17 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

Notice here that Paul nowhere states that scripture alone is to be the rule of Christian faith.</font>[/QUOTE]Paul didn't have to state that principle in so many words.
Look at the words of Peter:
2 Peter 1:20-21 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
--Holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. Their words are our authority. Their words are divine. Their words are God's Words. Their words are authoritative. And they are the basis of what we believe. If you choose to believe the Vedas, the Book of Mormon, the writings of Confucius, Ellen G. White's "The Great Controversy." etc., then go ahead. I choose to use the Bible as my authority.

A Biblical Example:
Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
--Paul came to Berea. He calls the Bereans noble? Why? Because they did not accept what he had to say at face value, but rather searched the Bible (the OT) to see whether his NT message was of God or not. As great as a teacher he was, his message was checked against the Word of God, for the Word of God was the final authority. The Word of God, the Bible, is always the final authority. They only believed once they were assured that his message was of God, that is, it agreed with what the Bible had to say.

That is correct. Paul is specifically referring to the Old Testament, upon which Timothy was raised.

Not true. James and Matthew, as well as the epistles to the Corinthians were all written in the 50's They were all early books. It was only John's writings that were written late in the 90's. The early believers recognized Scripture as they were being written. They were not as stupid as modern people think they were. They were not cavemen, with matching mentalities. You people have been indoctrinated with evolution too much. Check the second epistle of Peter. Peter recognized the writings of Paul as Scripture, and he recognized the writings of all the apostles as Scripture. It is apparent that he knew which was Sctipture and which was not. Read the third chapter carefully. If you can't find it yourself, ask again and I will give you specific references and explain them to you once again.

Sure the word "catholic" means universal. There is no argument there. That doesn't mean that Ignatius was referring to the "Catholic Church." It is just an assumption that you are making.

Why do you question the intelligence of the early believers. You constantly infer that the intellect of Peter, Paul, and the other Apostles and early beievers is next to zero. You insult them. These believers were able to discern what books were inspired and which were not, just as the Jews were able to tell which books belonged in the Old Testament canon and which were not. After all they had the translated Hebrew canon into Greek (the Septuagint) by 250 B.C. Yet you render these Christians as totally incapable without the Catholic Church. Amazing!

Why bother? I trust the Apostles. Why don't you?
DHK

 

Janosik quote:

Then you are saying that ALL religions are OK because they don't think the Catholic church is necessary. Then what is the point?!

 

DKH,

Do you know the order in which the books of the NT were written?

The books of the NT were not written in the order in which they appear in the Bible.

Many of Paul's letters were written before the Gospels.

Paul began writing his letters in 51 or 52. By 65 or 70 the Gospel of Mark was written. This was the first Gospel to be written. Other gospels and writtings followed.

Matthew's gospel was written around the year 80 and written after Mark. The book is named after the apostle Matthew, but its actual author is unknown. The intended audeince was Jewish Christians because this gospel shows that Jesus is the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy, and the main body of the gospel is divided into five sections, which would remind Jews of the Pentateuch.

Mark was written in 65 or 70, probably for non-Jewish Christians. It is the shortes gosple, and presents Jesus as the suffering Messiah who is misunderstood and rejected until his Resurrection.

Luke appeared about the same time as Matthew. Luke was a skilled Greek author who addressed his gospel and its companion volume, the Acts of the Apostles, to greek-speaking Christians. The author is usually identified as a missionary who traveled with Paul. He emphasizes the mercy and forgiveness of Jesus, as well as the joy his salvation brings.

John was written ten or more years after Luke and differs from the other three gospels in language and style. The author has been identified as the apostle John, or one of his disciples, but it is uncertain. The gospel appears to be written for Christians around Ephesus in Asia Minor.

The next 21 books of the NT are called letters. Thirteen are attibuted to Paul. None of the letters is a complete theological explanation of Christian doctrine. They were written to meet specific needs of the early Christians to solve problems as they arose. They represent increasing insight into the meaning of Christ's life and message gained by the apostles and early Christians under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Romans was written by Paul in about 58 and is a strong argument that we are not saved by observance of the OT law. Paul also devotes the last four chapters to an explanation of the moral duties of Christians and to the meaning of life in Christ.

I and II Corinthians were written between 54 and 58. Corinth was a Greek city known for its loose morals, and the Christians here needed a great deal of encouragement and correction from Paul after their conversion from paganism. Issues addressed in these letters deal with cliques in the community, sexual immorality, virginity and marriage, communion assemblies, charismatic gifts, love, and the Resurrection.

Galatians was written by Paul in about 54 to believers in Galatia. Paul refutes those who claim that Christians must be circumcised.

Ephesians appears to be written by a follower of Paul about the year 90, which was well after Paul's death. It proclaims the uniqueness of Christ as Son of God and the oneness of the Church with Christ.

Phillippians appears to be written by Paul during his imprisonment, possibly at Ephesus around the year 55. In this letter, he urges his readers to remain faithful, to imitate Christ in humble service and holiness of life.

Colossians is attributed to Paul, and there are some references to Paul's life and companions in the letter. However scholars debate this idea. Some hold that Paul dictated it to a secretary during one of his prisonments. Others favor the opinion that it was written by one of Paul's disciples. They feel that the style and language does not match Paul's that the the theology is a later development of thought. It appears to be a sermon based on an outline of Paul's. Colossians expresses the orthodox Christian belief in the preeminence of Christ as Savior and Lord, as head of the Church.

I Thessalonians is the oldest book of the NT. It was written by Paul in about 51 to the Church at Thessalonica. Christians during this time seemingly expected that Christ's Coming and the end of the world might occur at any moment. Paul offers guidelines for Christian conduct, especially purity and love. He assures his readers of the reality of the Resurrection and of their share in enternal life through Christ. He recommends obedience to Church authorities and charity toward all.

II Thessalonians answers more questions about the coming of Christ. Some Christians had stopped working to wait for the Lord's coming. He lists a number of events that must occur first. These events are vaguely described and do not offer a timetable for the end of the world. He also states that Christians are not to excuse themselves from work.

(I'll start another post to deal with the other books of the NT)

 

The pastoral letters are I and II Timothy and Titus because they are addressed to early Church leaders as guides for the pastoral care of their communities. Scholars debate who the actual author of these letters are. Some feel that they were actually written by one of Paul's disciples after his death, probably in the 80's or 90's. The language and style of these letters differ from Paul's other writings.

The Pastorals seem to reflect a later era in the Church: example I Timothy 3:6 says that a bishop should not be a "recent convert."

In any case, the letters tend to be consistent with and faithful to Paul's theology. If the author is not Paul, he certainly intended to teach with Paul's authority.

Philemon is the shortest of those ascribed to Paul. It was written while Paul was in prison either at Ephesus around 56 or Rome around 62, and sent to Philemon, a wealthy Christian who lived at Colossae. Paul is asking Philemon to take back a runaway slave whom Paul had converted. There is a subtle hint that Paul would like Philemon to free Onesimus and allow him to return to Paul as an assistant. Paul does not address the institution of slavery. The first Christians could not change Roman laws and they expected Christ to soon return. But the attitudes that Paul encourages in this letter would eventually lead Christians to repudiate slavery altogether.

Hebrews - is a sermon with many OT references in this book. Its Greek is excellent, and it was written by someone skilled in language, composition, and literary style. The author frequently quoted from the Alexandrian (Greek) version of the OT. Therefore, the writter was knowledgeable in Greek and the OT. It presents Christ as the Word of God, as Priest who saves us by his death, and as Leader who opens heaven to us.

James is a written sermon encouraging its readers to lead moral lives and that a living fiath must show itself in good works and a holy life.

I Peter - most scholars believed that the letter was sent by Peter from Rome (called Babylon) and written through Silvanus (see 5:12) about the year 64. However, modern scholars are of the opinion that the language and circumstances found in the letter imply a later date, perhaps 80-95 and an author writing in Peter's name. Still others believe that the letter was composed by someone who used sermons and letters of Peter as sources. In any event, the letter is inspired by God and is a beautiful sermon encouraging faithfulness to the Christian life.
It is seen as a message to comfort and encourage persecuted Christians.

II Peter exhorts believers to remain faithful to Christ and always to be ready for His coming. It is also doubtful that the apostle Peter is the author as chapter three speaks of the apostles as already dead.

I, II, and III John are theological instructions. Many scholars believe that it was written by a disciple of the author of John's Gospel. I John proclaims Jesus as Son of God but also truly human; God is love, and therefore we are to love one another. II John urges believers to remain faithful to Jesus and III John is a short not requesting aid and hospitality for missionaries.

Jude is a short sermon written about 100 warning Christians to avoid false teachers and remain faithful to the teaching of the apostles. This letter also refers to the apostles as being in the past (verse 17) The occasion of this letter was false teachings of some who had denied Christ and turned Christian freedom into a license to indulge in immorality.

Revelations is a literary form known as apocalytic and is also found in the OT bbok of Daniel. This type of literature originated during times of persecution and was intended to encourage readers in their trials. It used language the writer and his audience could understand but the persecutor would find meaningless.

Revelations can been seen as a pattern for confidence is Christ through every age. We will grow in faith and hope, in our assurance that God triumphs over evil. Many other important lessons are taught in Revelation. God the Fathor is adorded as Creator of all. Jesus is proclaimed as Savior of the world and is worshiped as divine. The Holy Spirit is shown to tough the lives of the believers. The absolute perfection of the Trinity is displayed through symbols of wisdom, power, holiness, and majesty. Revelation invites us to trust God, who will bring us through every trial, even death itself, to eternal life.

 

The point is that God will judge you based on your knowledge of His will and how you responded to that knowledge in good conscience.

If you deny this to be true, then it would follow that all who lived and died in the world from the time of Christ through today who never heard of Jesus are condemned. Is that what you believe? That all the countless thousands of people who lived on the American, Aisan, and Australian continents before the Christian missionaries arrived were condemned to hell?

 

[OUOTE]Originally posted by LorrieGrace:
Then you are saying that ALL religions are OK because they don't think the Catholic church is necessary. Then what is the point?![/QUOTE]

That quote was not my quote. I was quoting something that Janosik wrote.

 

LorrieGrace,

Not your quote? You posted those words four or five posts up from this one this very morning at 8:41 a.m.

In a nutshell, you are a part of the Church, even if you don't know it, as imperfectly as you are, because Christ established only one Church.

 

Living4Him

Yes I do. But apparently you do not. You are a very confused person.

That much is true.

Concerning the Gospel of Matthew is where you are really out to lunch. It seems that you have swallowed liberal scholarship (out to destroy the Bible) hook, line, and sinker. Matthew was the first gospel to be written. If, as Catholic tradition contends, it was written in Aramaic first, then it was written as early as 45 A.D. Most Protestants believe that there was no Aramaic edition, and that Matthew wrote in Greek only. That being the case the Gospel was written between 50 and 55. The view that this gospel was written after 70 A.D., is because the destruction of Jerusalem occurred in that year. The liberals do not believe in the ability of Christ to predict the future, and therefore assign a later date to the gospel of Matthew. To believe this later date theory is only a sign of your disbelief in Christ, or your ignorance of the Bible. Which do you plead to?

There is no proof that Mark is the first gospel. That again is liberal scholaship. Matthew was with Christ, one of the Apostles; Mark was not, but gained most of his information from Peter. All of ancient testimony points to Matthew as the first written gospel
Mark was probably written next, around 60 A.D.
Luke was written 61-62 A.D.
And all of John's writings were in the 90's.

Mark, written around 60, was written with the Romans in mind, and presents Christ as the Servant of God. Note there is no genealogy in Mark for people are not concerned with the ancestry of a servant. Mark 10:45 is the theme verse.

Mark 10:45 For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

Luke, written about 61,62 presents Christ as the Perfect Man. He presents much of the human aspects of Christ that the other gospels don't. One reason for this may be that Luke himself was a physician.

It is quite certain that the Gospel of John, the three Epistles of John, as well as the Book of Revelation, were all written by the same person, and that is John the Apostle. John wrote this Gospel about 90 A.D., well after the others. His purpose in writing was to show to the world that Christ was deity—the Son of God. His second purpose was to write supplemental information to the first three gospels that had already been written as much as 30-40 years earlier.

The next book is not a letter or an epistle, but a historical book, the Book of Acts, written by Luke.
Romans is next. It was written in 57,58 from Corinth on his third missionary journey. Speaking of theologocal explanations, the Book of Romans is the greatest treatise on the doctrine of soteriology ever written. It discusses every aspect of this doctrine throughout the book. It indeed is a complete theological explanation of the Christian doctrine of soteriology contrary to your assertions.

So here you just don't believe the Bible do you?
Ephesians 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:
--It is evident that Ephesians was written by Paul, or else you are calling the Holy Spirit of God who penned thise words, a liar. How do you plead?
The letter was written near the close of his first imprisonment in 63 A.D. Since Paul died about 68 A.D. it would have been slightly impossible for the epistle to have been written in 90 A.D.

It was durnig his imprisonment. But the date was more like 63, not 55. Paul was not in prison then.

You know, it is much simpler just to accept the Bible as true, then to trust lying liberal so-called scholarship.
Colossians 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timotheus our brother,
Paul wrote the epistle, no question about it.

The First Epistle of Thessalonians may have been the earliest of Paul's epistles, but it is certainly not the oldest book of the New Testament. It was written about 52 A.D. James epistle was written between 45 and 50, and Matthew was also written before First Thessalonians.
Your post indicates that you have been listening too much to liberals who deny the truth of the Bible, and the deity of Christ.
DHK

 

DKH,

Seriously, where do you get your information?

My information may be from liberals but it certaintly backs up the truth of the Catholic Church.

 

That only shows how corrupt and liberal the Catholic Church has begun. Go to ancient sources. Go to conservative sources that beleive the Bible. Why go to people that don't believe the Bible in the first place?

Who are these scholars that you depend on? Just believe the Bible. It is much more simple. That is why we have the Bible as our final authority in all matters of faith and practice.

1 Timothy 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope;

2 Timothy 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, according to the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus,

Titus 1:1 Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God's elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness;

Paul wrote the first two epistles to Timothy, and the third to Titus. Timothy was the pastor at Ephesus, and Titus, the pastor at Crete. Paul writes to give these men guidelines how to bring order in the local church. They deal primarily with ecclesiology.

1Timothy was written about 64, and 2Timothy was the last epistle that Paul wrote just before he was martyred in 67 A.D. To say that they reflect a "later era," is pure speculation without any foundation in fact. To deny Pauline authorship is to deny the veracity and inspiration of God's Word.

Although the authorship cannot be known for sure, it is probable that Paul wrote Hebrews.
The purpose of the book:
A. To encourage persecuted Christians.
B. To check apostasy.
C. To show the relationship between Christianity and Judaism.
D. It is a discussion of the relation of Christ to the Levitical priesthood and the temple sacrifices. It continually quotes the Old Testament to confirm its affirmations.
E. To show that animal sacrifices were no longer necessary.

James, no doubt the first book of the New Testament to be written, is a book that was written to give advice for pracitical Christian living.

Why do you listen to "modern scholarship" who enjoy tearing down the Scriptures and deny the inspiration of the Word of God? This book was written by Peter. See 1Pet.1:1, and take your argument up with God. It was written from Babylon as it says it was. It's theme centers around suffering, for the Christians were undergoing an intense persecution by Nero at that time.

Again, you doubt what God himself says, and listen to "modern lying scholarship."
Peter believes other apostles are already dead?? Chapter and verse please?

Why is it so hard for you to believe the Bible instead of your own ideas and opinions. The names of the authors are given.

You are at least 25 years off. Jude was written no later than 75. Consider: Jude was the half brother of Jesus. Jesus was born in 4 B.C., died 29 A.D. at the age of 33. If Jude was born within four years of Jesus birth, (or 4 years after), then Jude would be 100 years old at the time of writing (if the epistle was written in 100). Since the average age was 50-60, this is almost impossible, especially taking into consideration that all of the apsotles except for John were martyred.

Jude 1:17 But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;

This does not mean that the apostles were dead. It refers to the words, or epistles that they had already written or even spoken.
DHK

 

DKH,

Paul was not an apostle of Jesus. There were only 12 apostles and Paul was not one of them.

You have not provided one shread of historical proof as to your claims when the various books of the Bible were written.

I have provided you with several. These in no way take away from the inspired nature of the Bible.

Here are some historians that agree with the dating of the times the books of the Bible were written:

Anglican Church
Seeking God
Living By Faith - A KJV group
The Word
Christian Separatist
Bible Org
Jewish Path
Christianity on the Net- an IFB Group
Harper Collins Bible Dictionary


Did you know that Martin Luther and current Paulistic Western Churches reject James, Revelation, & Jude.