Featured Renouncing the Catholic faith formally

You may also want to consider a conservative classical Anglican or confessional Lutheran church.

 

DHK But, tell me which Books were written by the Apostles , stop skirting around my questions all the time.

 

JonC, usually I always give Book, Chapter and Verse, maybe I just thought that you being a Sola Scriptura that you knew where to find the verse or passage. Check back thru my Post's and you will see that I usually give Book, Chapter and Verse, If you have the wrong interpretation [ which you do have } then you will never be able to comprehend the correct 'One " Interpretation as was used by the first early Century Christians. Why don't you start a new Thread on " the correct Interpretation' and give your attempt at it's origin/ early history.

 

JonC ,good idea , here it is, now study it please, it is the only correct interpretation as understood by all those early Christians including those bishops at the early councils that decided the Books found in are Bibles, including the Table of Contents

See here - click on [email protected]

 

Matthew (Levi)
Mark (from Peter), an associate of an Apostle
Luke--The gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts were both written by Luke as one volume. Luke was an eyewitness to much of Acts as he traveled with Paul. Most believe that he both witnessed some of the events of the gospel and also had access to documents of the life of Christ.
John was an apostle.

13 epistles written by the Apostle Paul. Romans--Hebrews.
The Book of Hebrews could have been written by Paul, but to this day the writer is not known for sure.
James is written by the half brother of Jesus.
Jude is written by the half brother of Jesus
Two epistles of Peter are written by Peter.
Three epistles of John and the Book of Revelation are written by the Apostle John.

The books of the NT have their source in the Apostles and their associates. No matter which way you look at it the source goes back to the apostles. Even when Paul wrote his epistles he had an amanuensis write for him. One could say the same thing about the relationship between Peter and Mark, though Mark had a bit more liberty than most amanuenses.

The only two that are not are the two half brothers of Jesus, and no one, I mean absolutely no one, would call their credentials into question.

Of course don't take my word for it. The inspired Word of God is much more authoritative than me.
2Pe 3:2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:
--They were to remember those things which were written by the prophets (authors of the OT), and of them, the apostles (authors of the NT). That is what made up the Bible.

 

Of course you're going to be told that those were not His half brothers, that they were His cousins, or the sons of Joseph by another woman prior to Mary. Talk about reading Catholic dogma back into scripture while scripture refutes it.

 

Mark and Luke were not among the twelve chosen by Jesus.

 

You can always adduce evidence to that effect and we would be agreeable

 

So? They were both chosen by Peter and Paul. Are you going to question their credentials?

 

Yes, a good list. There is more, but this is sufficient to prove the point.

 

Wrong, these events listed had always been part of early church history just the labels were not yet coined , similar to the word Trinity. Your bias fiction writers remind me of Jack Chick, Lorraine Boettner, Dan Brown, [ Da Vinci Code ] Jj Carroll [ Trail of Tears/ Blood ? ] and all other anti-Catholic fiction writers that have been proven as frauds that know how to make a sleazy dollar to the gullible and ignorant.

 

Wrong, these events listed had always been part of early church history just the labels were not yet coined , similar to the word Trinity. Your bias fiction writers remind me of Jack Chick, Lorraine Boettner, Dan Brown, [ Da Vinci Code ] Jj Carroll [ Trail of Tears/ Blood ? ] and all other anti-Catholic fiction writers that have been proven as frauds that know how to make a sleazy dollar to the gullible and ignorant.

 

You know they haven't. The annunciation in and of itself proves you wrong.
So does all the facts about Peter being the Pope in Rome which I demonstrated to you just using the Bible alone. That is your biggest problem, and the RCC biggest lie. It is their foundation, and their foundation is all a lie.

You have proven yourself to be the gullible one on this board, by entering into a religion full of superstition and paganism.
You have gone out of your way to post RCC propaganda and are not able to defend any of your doctrines with the Bible itself.

 

There were no popes in the early church, and no monarchial bishops, either. Scripture proves that.

Start with a false premise, and a false conclusion will always follow.

 

I also showed how a Catholic scholar and priest found Peter's tomb in Jerusalem, and how the pope tried to keep it quiet. Hard to have been the first pope of Rome when you never lived there.

The Roman church is built on a house of cards.