RELIGION....(part 2)

[bad donkey!]

---

a-a-a... hello

Man did not wrote the bible on his own but inspired by God himself....

Maybe we should just listen to their arguments i'm getting sense on their conversation...

By the way i'm a "Catholic", i'm quite confused of my faith...

inspired by God lagi...per kinsa man nag sulathmmmm? tao diba?...

kung mu insist sila ka good deeds doesn't SAVE...faith and charity ra...unsa man diay na ang charity??diba good deeds towards your fellow men man na??or it has a deepr meaning, charityÂ* i mean..please explain about charity.....anybody can have faith and charity...unsa man na ang mga criminal kusog kaau musimba dagko kaau ug ihatag nga kwarta sa simbahan ug sa ubantao...pe naa sila faith and charity...does it meannga ma save sila? isn't it a bit too fuzzy?Â* You say only good people go to heaven....does doing good deeds make you a bad person? does faith and charity alone make you a good person? A bad person can be both faithfull and charitable....I'm confused really...The arguments from both sides are contradictions unto itself.....But please do explain more about faith and charity and how charity is not part of doing good deeds.

[mannyamador]

ang-ang para masunog mo sa inyong kaugalingong mantika it's best to let the Word of God convict you in a format that has an imprimatur of one of your powers. And I maintain, the RCC didn't compile the books.

And WHO did? Please show me a complete, accurate non-Catholic canon made by non-Catholics that was in general use BEFORE the Catholic Church approved it. You CAN'T because none existed. The earlier "lists" were either incomplete and/or full of spurious inclusions. They also had NO AUTHORITY. The Apostles did not define any. No other authoritative Christian body did either. Only the Church did.

As I have proven, only ONE body in history defined the canon: the Catholic Church. Even Martin Luther, who bastardized the canon, acknowledged his debt to the Catholic Church for its work.

[bfg9000]

http://www.jhuger.com/kisshank.php

[mannyamador]

From "Proving Inspiration"
http://www.catholic.com/library/Proving_Inspiration.asp

The Bible as Historical Truth

Next we take a look at what the Bible, considered merely as a history, tells us, focusing particularly
on the New Testament, and more specifically the Gospels. We examine the account contained
therein of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection.

Using what is in the Gospels themselves and what we find in extra-biblical writings from the early
centuries, together with what we know of human nature (and what we can otherwise, from
natural reason alone, know of divine nature), we conclude that either Jesus was just what he
claimed to be -- God -- or he was crazy. (The one thing we know he could not have been was
merely a good man who was not God, since no merely good man would make the claims he made.)

We are able to eliminate the possibility of his being a madman not just from what he said but from
what his followers did after his death. Many critics of the Gospel accounts of the resurrection claim
that Christ did not truly rise, that his followers took his body from the tomb and then proclaimed
him risen from the dead. According to these critics, the resurrection was nothing more than a hoax.
Devising a hoax to glorify a friend and mentor is one thing, but you do not find people dying for a
hoax, at least not one from which they derive no benefit. Certainly if Christ had not risen his
disciples would not have died horrible deaths affirming the reality and truth of the resurrection. The
result of this line of reasoning is that we must conclude that Jesus indeed rose from the dead.
Consequently, his claims concerning himself—including his claim to be God—have credibility. He meant
what he said and did what he said he would do.

Further, Christ said he would found a Church. Both the Bible (still taken as merely a historical book,
not yet as an inspired one) and other ancient works attest to the fact that Christ established a
Church with the rudiments of what we see in the Catholic Church today—papacy, hierarchy,
priesthood, sacraments, and teaching authority.

We have thus taken the material and purely historically concluded that Jesus founded the Catholic
Church. Because of his Resurrection we have reason to take seriously his claims concerning the
Church, including its authority to teach in his name.

This Catholic Church tells us the Bible is inspired, and we can take the Church’s word for it precisely
because the Church is infallible. Only after having been told by a properly constituted authority --
that is, one established by God to assure us of the truth concerning matters of faith -- that the
Bible is inspired can we reasonably begin to use it as an inspired book.

A Spiral Argument

Note that this is not a circular argument. We are not basing the inspiration of the Bible on the
Church’s infallibility and the Church’s infallibility on the word of an inspired Bible. That indeed would
be a circular argument! What we have is really a spiral argument. On the first level we argue to the
reliability of the Bible insofar as it is history. From that we conclude that an infallible Church was
founded. And then we take the word of that infallible Church that the Bible is inspired. This is not
a circular argument because the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired) is not simply a restatement of
its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable), and its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable) is
in no way based on the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired). What we have demonstrated is that
without the existence of the Church, we could never know whether the Bible is inspired.

[bfg9000]

http://www.jhuger.com/biblethumpers

[mannyamador]

Scripture and Tradition
http://www.catholic.com/library/Scri..._Tradition.asp

[dacs]

faith and charity ra...unsa man diay na ang charity??diba good deeds towards your fellow men man na??or it has a deepr meaning, charity i mean..please explain about charity.....

Charity, as defined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, is the theological virtue by which we love God above all things for His own sake, and our neighbor as ourselves for the love of God. This is different from philanthropy which is the active effort to promote human welfare. The good deeds called for in our Christian faith are acts which always point to God. Good deeds (without faith) directed simply toward promoting human welfare are not Christian charity. If you want a more theological exposition you can go to an article in the New Advent Online Catholic Encyclopedia.

anybody can have faith and charity...unsa man na ang mga criminal kusog kaau musimba dagko kaau ug ihatag nga kwarta sa simbahan ug sa ubantao...pe naa sila faith and charity...does it meannga ma save sila? isn't it a bit too fuzzy?

Yes, anybody can have faith and charity but it is always an exercise of man's free will. To freely choose to accept the gift of Christian faith is to surrender your current life and live a Christian life, remain faithful and work out your salvation with fear and trembling while professing your faith working through charity. If such event occurs in the life of that criminal, then he can be saved. If not, then let God be his judge.

You say only good people go to heaven....does doing good deeds make you a bad person?

Huh?!

does faith and charity alone make you a good person?

What is the measure of a 'good person'? This world may measure what is good in an entirely different way than a Christian does.

A bad person can be both faithfull and charitable....

That is not logical. You cannot be faithful to God, yet remain sinful. You cannot truly be charitable, yet remain bad. You may exercise charity sometimes but that does not make you charitable.

I'm confused really...The arguments from both sides are contradictions unto itself.....But please do explain more about faith and charity and how charity is not part of doing good deeds.

Later.

[Cardinal Bunal]

Your history is biased... ;-b

Even before John penned the last book in Patmos, almost all of the congregations had COPIES of the sacred documents, but of course this wasn't without some confusion with other so-called epistles because apostates have already arose.... (and mind you, these congregations were autonomous - to Rome; one can be sure of that.

Ignatius of Antioch was the first to introduce these teachings of heterodox, most of them accorded to the earliest beliefs of "real presence" in the bread of the altar.... His authority didn't necessarily come from Peter.

Papacy..... it was officially called that way 2 or 3 centuries away from the start of the Christian religion.

It was always known as the Catholic Church, but because of Pope Leo IX, she was known as the Roman Catholic Church in 1094 A.D.

Charity, as defined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, is the theological virtue by which we love God above all things for His own sake, and our neighbor as ourselves for the love of God.Â* This is different from philanthropy which is the active effort to promote human welfare.Â* The good deeds called for in our Christian faith are acts which always point to God.Â* Good deeds (without faith) directed simply toward promoting human welfare are not Christian charity.Â* If you want a more theological exposition you can go to

Presuming Bad Donkey believes this kind of theology there are some people who GIVE but are smug and filled with self-righteous pride.... (obviously NOT associated with any sector at all in Christianity) to them Isaiah has to say I will expose your righteousness! People will know your deeds, but none of them can save you! - Isaiah 57: 12

[dacs]

Your history is biased... ;-b

Even before John penned the last book in Patmos, almost all of the congregations had COPIES of the sacred documents, but of course this wasn't without some confusion with other so-called epistles because apostates have already arose.... (and mind you, these congregations were autonomous - to Rome; one can be sure of that.

Your history is not even history.Â* Have you no shame?!Â* Where in the Bible did it ever say that copies where made for the other churches?Â* You are not going 'un-biblical' on me here, right?Â* St. Paul is addressing a particular condition of a particular church.Â* Have you read the introduction of each Pauline epistles?Â* You should, you know.

Autonomous?!Â* I am beginning to doubt now if you have really read the Bible.Â* Have you read Acts 15:1-31?Â* Did Paul and Barnabas decide on their own?Â* How about Peter in Acts 10?Â* Did Peter find it necessary to consult the other apostles?Â* No.Â* Whose autonomous now?

Ignatius of Antioch was the first to introduce these teachings of heterodox, most of them accorded to the earliest beliefs of "real presence" in the bread of the altar.... His authority didn't necessarily come from Peter.

Explain 'these teachings of heterodox'.

Ignatius became the bishop of the see of Antioch after St. Peter left.Â* Let us listen to what St. Ignatius has to say about the see of Rome, the see of Peter:

"Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Mast High God the Father, and of Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is sanctified and enlightened by the will of God, who farmed all things that are according to the faith and love of Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour; the Church which presides in the place of the region of the Romans, and which is worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of credit, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love..."

Ignatius of Antioch,Epistle to the Romans, Prologue (A.D. 110), in ANF,I:73

Want more?

Papacy..... it was officially called that way 2 or 3 centuries away from the start of the Christian religion.

Your point?

When was the doctrine of Trinity first appeared as known as 'Trinity'?

It was always known as the Catholic Church, but because of Pope Leo IX, she was known as the Roman Catholic Church in 1094 A.D.

Let us hear Jerome (translator, Vulgate Bible):

'What does he call his faith? That which the Roman Church possesses? Or that which is contained in the volumes of Origen? If he answers "the Roman," then we are CATHOLICS who have not been infected with the errors of Origen!'Â* Jerome C. Ruf. 1,4

Thank you, Jerome!

[Cardinal Bunal]

When was the doctrine of Trinity first appeared as known as 'Trinity'?

12th century if I'm not mistaken - also about the same time Transubstantiation and Adoration of the Host was defined, Honorius and Innocent III having a hand in these...... but still futile since the Biblical role of the Spirit - one of it's functions as one who intercedes for us; even in groans that words cannot express.... it's role as Helper and intercessor in general (Christ and the Spirit are interchangeable) have mostly been transferred to aÂ* highly exlated Roman Catholic version of "Mary", one of whose titles are Mediatrix of Graces.

Heck, there is no more Gospel of Grace as far as the RCC is concerned.

Autonomous?!Â* I am beginning to doubt now if you have really read the Bible.Â* Have you read Acts 15:1-31?Â* Did Paul and Barnabas decide on their own?Â* How about Peter in Acts 10?Â* Did Peter find it necessary to consult the other apostles?Â* No.Â* Whose autonomous now?

I meant independent from any ex cathedra supposedly coming from Babylon. That is if that term even existed as early as those years.

Again, this is on the premise that I disagree that the Roman Church has derived it's authority from the apostles.

'What does he call his faith? That which the Roman Church possesses? Or that which is contained in the volumes of Origen? If he answers "the Roman," then we are CATHOLICS who have not been infected with the errors of Origen!'

Faith - that as taught by the apostles and prophets (Eph. 2: 19 - 21, Gal. 1: 8 ) ....... NOT those infected by bitter root by the lying pen of the scribes... or supposed scribes.