Were the church fathers Catholic?

[Yakuda]

It has long been debated if the church Jesus was referring to as "my" church in Matt 16:18 is the Catholic church. The Patristic era is that time in early church history immediately following the death of the last apostle. Some of the fathers who wrote in that era were disciples of the actual apostles. One such church father is Ignatius of Antioch. He was a disciple of the apostle John. 

Was St Ignatius of Antioch a Catholic? His epistle to the Smyrnaeans says:

 Chapter 7

"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ." He goes on, "Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes." Hmmm sounds like something a Catholic would say. 

Then in chapter 8 

"See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid."

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm

[TreeBeard]

The first mention found so far of the term “Catholic” was in 110 AD.  So, isn’t the most you could say that somewhere in the 1st or early 2nd century, the Catholic Church was founded?  

Is it important to you that there were no other churches prior to Catholics?

Edited January 25 by TreeBeard

[Yakuda]

7 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

The first mention found so far of the term “Catholic” was in 110 AD.  So, isn’t the most you could say that somewhere in the 1st or early 2nd century, the Catholic Church was founded?  

Is it important to you that there were no other churches prior to Catholics?

Ignatius of Antioch along with Polycarp were disciples of the apostle John. The appearance of the word "Catholic" is secondary to the reference to the Eucharist being the flesh of Jesus Christ. Jesus himself said, unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you do not have life within you. John 6:53.

Then Ignatius mentions bishops and doing nothing apart from the bishop. He also mentions that the Eucharist is deemed proper (the flesh of Jesus Christ) when administered by the bishop or by one to whom he has entrusted it. 

It's important only to the extent that Jesus established a church and that the earliest members of that church believe what catholics believe. To believe anything else is a rejection of Jesus. 

[TreeBeard]

1 minute ago, Yakuda said:

…the earliest members of that church believe what catholics believe. To believe anything else is a rejection of Jesus. 

Did they believe anything that Catholics no longer believe?  Or perform rituals in the early church that would no longer be acceptable in today’s church?

[Yakuda]

5 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Did they believe anything that Catholics no longer believe?  Or perform rituals in the early church that would no longer be acceptable in today’s church?

Not that I am aware of. If you have evidence of such things show it. Catholics haven't stopped believing anything. They have changed practices not beliefs. 

[TreeBeard]

Just now, Yakuda said:

They have changed practices not beliefs. 

What practices have changed?

[Yakuda]

2 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

What practices have changed?

A very common one is abstinence from eating meat on Friday. Catholics are still called to sacrifice but the requirement to abstain from eating meat has been removed.

[French Patriot]

57 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

Jesus himself said, unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you do not have life within you. John 6:53.

If you weigh Jesus' body and blood, he would not feed many, so the reference cannot be carnal/physical.

It must be spiritual consumption of thinking and not cannibalism. 

Remember the special meaning of the sop of the Last Supper, as a reward to ones best friends.

[Yakuda]

16 minutes ago, French Patriot said:

If you weigh Jesus' body and blood, he would not feed many, so the reference cannot be carnal/physical.

It must be spiritual consumption of thinking and not cannibalism. 

Remember the special meaning of the sop of the Last Supper, as a reward to ones best friends.

That's not what Jesus said. 

That not what Jesus said. 

Jesus is clear andi. John 6:61 Jesus asks after saying 3 times to eat his flesh, "Does this shock you?" Why should they be shocked if he meant "spiritual consumption"? 

[TreeBeard]

1 hour ago, Yakuda said:

A very common one is abstinence from eating meat on Friday. Catholics are still called to sacrifice but the requirement to abstain from eating meat has been removed.

Do you read the National Catholic Register?   They say you’re incorrect.   It’s interesting that it seems USA bishops came up with this on their own….  
 

https://www.ncregister.com/blog/are-meatless-fridays-still-a-thing-does-it-matter

It was not abolished by Vatican II. It was not abolished by Pope Paul VI or Pope St. John Paul II. It was not abolished by the 1983 Code of Canon Law. It remains the universal law of the Latin Church

The U.S. bishops, in the very act of abolishing the law of Friday abstinence in their jurisdiction, expressed the “hope” and “expectation” that “the Catholic community will ordinarily continue to abstain from meat by free choice as formerly we did in obedience to Church law.”

[blackbird]

3 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

The first mention found so far of the term “Catholic” was in 110 AD.  So, isn’t the most you could say that somewhere in the 1st or early 2nd century, the Catholic Church was founded?  

Is it important to you that there were no other churches prior to Catholics?

 If you ask a Catholic, he will tell you it started with Jesus Christ.  But this has been greatly disputed by non-Catholics.  This article explains the Protestant belief on it.

quote

The Roman Catholic Church contends that its origin is the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ in approximately AD 30. The Catholic Church proclaims itself to be the church that Jesus Christ died for, the church that was established and built by the apostles. Is that the true origin of the Catholic Church?


On the contrary. Even a cursory reading of the New Testament will reveal that the Catholic Church does not have its origin in the teachings of Jesus or His apostles. In the New Testament, there is no mention of the papacy, worship/adoration of Mary (or the immaculate conception of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the assumption of Mary, or Mary as co-redemptrix and mediatrix), petitioning saints in heaven for their prayers, apostolic succession, the ordinances of the church functioning as sacraments, infant baptism, confession of sin to a priest, purgatory, indulgences, or the equal authority of church tradition and Scripture. So, if the origin of the Catholic Church is not in the teachings of Jesus and His apostles, as recorded in the New Testament, what is the true origin of the Catholic Church?

For the first 280 years of Christian history, Christianity was banned by the Roman Empire, and Christians were terribly persecuted. This changed after the “conversion” of the Roman Emperor Constantine. Constantine provided religious toleration with the Edict of Milan in AD 313, effectively lifting the ban on Christianity. Later, in AD 325, Constantine called the Council of Nicea in an attempt to unify Christianity. Constantine envisioned Christianity as a religion that could unite the Roman Empire, which at that time was beginning to fragment and divide. While this may have seemed to be a positive development for the Christian church, the results were anything but positive. Just as Constantine refused to fully embrace the Christian faith but continued many of his pagan beliefs and practices, so the Christian church that Constantine and his successors promoted progressively became a mixture of true Christianity and Roman paganism.

Following are a few examples:

Most Roman Catholic beliefs and practices regarding Mary are completely absent from the Bible. Where did those beliefs come from? The Roman Catholic view of Mary has far more in common with the Isis mother-goddess religion of Egypt than it does with anything taught in the New Testament. Interestingly, the first hints of Catholic Mariology occur in the writings of Origen, who lived in Alexandria, Egypt, which happened to be the focal point of Isis worship.

The Lord’s Supper being a consumption of the literal body and blood of Jesus is not taught in the Bible. The idea that bread and wine are miraculously transformed into the literal body and blood of Jesus (transubstantiation) is not biblical. However, several ancient pagan religions, including Mithraism, which was very popular in the Roman Empire, had some form of “theophagy” (the eating of one’s god) as a ritualistic practice.

Roman Catholicism has “saints” one can pray to in order to gain a particular blessing. For example, Saint Gianna Beretta Molla is the patron saint of fertility. Francis of Assisi is the patron saint of animals. There are multiple patron saints of healing and comfort. Nowhere is even a hint of this taught in Scripture. Just as the Roman pantheon of gods had a god of love, a god of peace, a god of war, a god of strength, a god of wisdom, etc., so the Catholic Church has a saint who is “in charge” over each of these and many other categories. Many Roman cities had a god specific to the city, and the Catholic Church provided “patron saints” for cities as well.

The idea that the Roman bishop is the vicar of Christ, the supreme leader of the Christian Church, is utterly foreign to the Word of God. The supremacy of the Roman bishop (the papacy) was created with the support of the Roman emperors. While most other bishops (and Christians) resisted the idea of the Roman bishop being supreme, the Roman bishop eventually rose to supremacy, again, due to the power and influence of the Roman emperors. After the western half of the Roman Empire collapsed, the popes took on the title that had previously belonged to the Roman emperors—Pontifex Maximus.

Many more examples could be given. These four should suffice in demonstrating the origin of the Catholic Church. Of course, the Roman Catholic Church denies the pagan origin of its beliefs and practices. The Catholic Church disguises its pagan beliefs under layers of complicated theology and church tradition. Recognizing that many of its beliefs and practices are utterly foreign to Scripture, the Catholic Church is forced to deny the authority and sufficiency of Scripture.

The origin of the Catholic Church is the tragic compromise of Christianity with the pagan religions that surrounded it. Instead of proclaiming the gospel and converting the pagans, the Catholic Church “Christianized” the pagan religions and “paganized” Christianity. By blurring the differences and erasing the distinctions, the Catholic Church made itself attractive to the idolatrous people of the Roman Empire. One result was the Catholic Church becoming the supreme religion in the Roman world for centuries. However, another result was the most dominant form of Christianity apostatizing from the true gospel of Jesus Christ and the true proclamation of God’s Word.

Second Timothy 4:3–4 declares, “For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.”

What is the origin of the Roman Catholic Church? | GotQuestions.org

 

[Yakuda]

2 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

Do you read the National Catholic Register?   They say you’re incorrect.   It’s interesting that it seems USA bishops came up with this on their own….  
 

https://www.ncregister.com/blog/are-meatless-fridays-still-a-thing-does-it-matter

It was not abolished by Vatican II. It was not abolished by Pope Paul VI or Pope St. John Paul II. It was not abolished by the 1983 Code of Canon Law. It remains the universal law of the Latin Church

The U.S. bishops, in the very act of abolishing the law of Friday abstinence in their jurisdiction, expressed the “hope” and “expectation” that “the Catholic community will ordinarily continue to abstain from meat by free choice as formerly we did in obedience to Church law.”

Hope and expectation no longer a requirement. The practice changed. 

44 minutes ago, blackbird said:

 If you ask a Catholic, he will tell you it started with Jesus Christ.  But this has been greatly disputed by non-Catholics.  This article explains the Protestant belief on it.

quote

The Roman Catholic Church contends that its origin is the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ in approximately AD 30. The Catholic Church proclaims itself to be the church that Jesus Christ died for, the church that was established and built by the apostles. Is that the true origin of the Catholic Church?


On the contrary. Even a cursory reading of the New Testament will reveal that the Catholic Church does not have its origin in the teachings of Jesus or His apostles. In the New Testament, there is no mention of the papacy, worship/adoration of Mary (or the immaculate conception of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the assumption of Mary, or Mary as co-redemptrix and mediatrix), petitioning saints in heaven for their prayers, apostolic succession, the ordinances of the church functioning as sacraments, infant baptism, confession of sin to a priest, purgatory, indulgences, or the equal authority of church tradition and Scripture. So, if the origin of the Catholic Church is not in the teachings of Jesus and His apostles, as recorded in the New Testament, what is the true origin of the Catholic Church?

For the first 280 years of Christian history, Christianity was banned by the Roman Empire, and Christians were terribly persecuted. This changed after the “conversion” of the Roman Emperor Constantine. Constantine provided religious toleration with the Edict of Milan in AD 313, effectively lifting the ban on Christianity. Later, in AD 325, Constantine called the Council of Nicea in an attempt to unify Christianity. Constantine envisioned Christianity as a religion that could unite the Roman Empire, which at that time was beginning to fragment and divide. While this may have seemed to be a positive development for the Christian church, the results were anything but positive. Just as Constantine refused to fully embrace the Christian faith but continued many of his pagan beliefs and practices, so the Christian church that Constantine and his successors promoted progressively became a mixture of true Christianity and Roman paganism.

Following are a few examples:

Most Roman Catholic beliefs and practices regarding Mary are completely absent from the Bible. Where did those beliefs come from? The Roman Catholic view of Mary has far more in common with the Isis mother-goddess religion of Egypt than it does with anything taught in the New Testament. Interestingly, the first hints of Catholic Mariology occur in the writings of Origen, who lived in Alexandria, Egypt, which happened to be the focal point of Isis worship.

The Lord’s Supper being a consumption of the literal body and blood of Jesus is not taught in the Bible. The idea that bread and wine are miraculously transformed into the literal body and blood of Jesus (transubstantiation) is not biblical. However, several ancient pagan religions, including Mithraism, which was very popular in the Roman Empire, had some form of “theophagy” (the eating of one’s god) as a ritualistic practice.

Roman Catholicism has “saints” one can pray to in order to gain a particular blessing. For example, Saint Gianna Beretta Molla is the patron saint of fertility. Francis of Assisi is the patron saint of animals. There are multiple patron saints of healing and comfort. Nowhere is even a hint of this taught in Scripture. Just as the Roman pantheon of gods had a god of love, a god of peace, a god of war, a god of strength, a god of wisdom, etc., so the Catholic Church has a saint who is “in charge” over each of these and many other categories. Many Roman cities had a god specific to the city, and the Catholic Church provided “patron saints” for cities as well.

The idea that the Roman bishop is the vicar of Christ, the supreme leader of the Christian Church, is utterly foreign to the Word of God. The supremacy of the Roman bishop (the papacy) was created with the support of the Roman emperors. While most other bishops (and Christians) resisted the idea of the Roman bishop being supreme, the Roman bishop eventually rose to supremacy, again, due to the power and influence of the Roman emperors. After the western half of the Roman Empire collapsed, the popes took on the title that had previously belonged to the Roman emperors—Pontifex Maximus.

Many more examples could be given. These four should suffice in demonstrating the origin of the Catholic Church. Of course, the Roman Catholic Church denies the pagan origin of its beliefs and practices. The Catholic Church disguises its pagan beliefs under layers of complicated theology and church tradition. Recognizing that many of its beliefs and practices are utterly foreign to Scripture, the Catholic Church is forced to deny the authority and sufficiency of Scripture.

The origin of the Catholic Church is the tragic compromise of Christianity with the pagan religions that surrounded it. Instead of proclaiming the gospel and converting the pagans, the Catholic Church “Christianized” the pagan religions and “paganized” Christianity. By blurring the differences and erasing the distinctions, the Catholic Church made itself attractive to the idolatrous people of the Roman Empire. One result was the Catholic Church becoming the supreme religion in the Roman world for centuries. However, another result was the most dominant form of Christianity apostatizing from the true gospel of Jesus Christ and the true proclamation of God’s Word.

Second Timothy 4:3–4 declares, “For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.”

What is the origin of the Roman Catholic Church? | GotQuestions.org

 

Silliness. ANOTHER example of making up in volume what you lack in accuracy. I pray for your exodus from heresy 

[Yakuda]

2 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

Do you read the National Catholic Register?   They say you’re incorrect.   It’s interesting that it seems USA bishops came up with this on their own….  
 

https://www.ncregister.com/blog/are-meatless-fridays-still-a-thing-does-it-matter

It was not abolished by Vatican II. It was not abolished by Pope Paul VI or Pope St. John Paul II. It was not abolished by the 1983 Code of Canon Law. It remains the universal law of the Latin Church

The U.S. bishops, in the very act of abolishing the law of Friday abstinence in their jurisdiction, expressed the “hope” and “expectation” that “the Catholic community will ordinarily continue to abstain from meat by free choice as formerly we did in obedience to Church law.”

It literally says "formally"....

[blackbird]

47 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

Hope and expectation no longer a requirement. The practice changed. 

Silliness. ANOTHER example of making up in volume what you lack in accuracy. I pray for your exodus from heresy 

Of course you would say that because you don't bother trying to actually find out what the Holy Scriptures say. The article I quoted is fairly long because there is a lot of false dogma to speak to.  At least I post something that anyone who wants to know the truth can understand.  It is far better than a one-liner that says nothing.  As the article I quoted says, your beliefs are based on what the Catholic Church calls "tradition".  In other words the inventions of men.

[TreeBeard]

1 hour ago, Yakuda said:

It literally says "formally"....

So your religion changes based on….   what?  And if it can change just by some bishops deciding it, how do you determine the validity of any other rituals or precepts?

[Dougie93]

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

 your beliefs are based on what the Catholic Church calls "tradition".  In other words the inventions of men.

now we see that the Pope in Rome is a godless atheist Communist, groveling to the Woke Marxist lunatics

but this is how it was in the 4th Century AD

the Roman Imperator will do anything to insinuate himself as Pontifex Maximus

Tiberius Caesar is the Harlot of Babylon

[SpankyMcFarland]

12 hours ago, blackbird said:

As the article I quoted says, your beliefs are based on what the Catholic Church calls "tradition".  In other words the inventions of men.

All religions are the inventions of men. 

[Yakuda]

13 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

So your religion changes based on….   what?  And if it can change just by some bishops deciding it, how do you determine the validity of any other rituals or precepts?

Yes practices change not dogma. A bishop or even the Pope cant change a dogma such as the real presence of the Eucharist. What are you not able to comprehend here? 

[Yakuda]

13 hours ago, blackbird said:

Of course you would say that because you don't bother trying to actually find out what the Holy Scriptures say. The article I quoted is fairly long because there is a lot of false dogma to speak to.  At least I post something that anyone who wants to know the truth can understand.  It is far better than a one-liner that says nothing.  As the article I quoted says, your beliefs are based on what the Catholic Church calls "tradition".  In other words the inventions of men.

I known what Scripture says. It says, "And I say to you: You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld will not prevail against it."

Now I know heretics scour the scripture to find passages that are intended to confuse people about what Jesus clearly said. You actively work to obfuscate what Jesus says simply because you think the Catholic church is wrong. 

[blackbird]

14 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

All religions are the inventions of men. 

Actually, it is fairly easy to show that is not correct.  Almost all religions of the world are false, but there is one truth that the Bible reveals to mankind.

First, I would ask do you believe in God?  You never said what you believe except that one six word line.

The fact that the universe exists means there to have been a cause.  Every effect has a cause.  That is basic logic.  So it reasonable to believe an infinitely complex universe required an infinitely intelligent designer-Creator.  That is a basic point deduced from logic.

So we can observe what God created.  All life is the work of a Creator-designer we call God.

This boils down to two rational reasons why we believe in God:

1.  The fact we can observe the creation and life that exists.

2.  The Bible says itself it is God's revelation to mankind.  A study of the Bible will demonstrate why we believe that.  If you have not studied it, you are not really in a position to dismiss it.

Then there are some questions about things that only the Bible can answer.  Like why are we here.  There must be some reason.  Why would man which has intelligence and the power to reason even exist if there were no real reason for it?  Again the Bible delves into the answers to that.

The atheists argue that there is no God, but they have no answer for why mankind exists.  They would have to conclude we are all just some accident of the cosmos.  Kind of an accidental chemical reaction.  To them life has no meaning.  We are here accidentally, we live for no purpose, and we all just go into oblivion. 

The atheist therefore has absolutely nothing to offer in the way of an explanation for our existence.  That is a very dark, demoralizing, negative view of life and everything.  But there are reasons why God created mankind and there are purposes for every person on earth.   We are not just an accident of nature.  This is where the Bible comes in.

That was a preliminary comment on the existence of God.  Then we come to the question about whether the Bible came from God.  To understand that requires some effort in the way of study.  One must spend some time studying the Holy Scriptures (Bible) to find out exactly what the evidence to know whether it comes from God.  The nature of the Bible and what it says gives strong evidence that it did in fact come from God.

"When Jesus walked the earth about 2000 years ago, He was faced with a very similar question when the people who heard Him teach wondered if His teaching was truly from God. Jesus answered them by giving this simple, yet profound answer, “...My teaching is not Mine, but His who sent Me. If anyone is willing to do His will, he will know of the teaching, whether it is of God or whether I speak from Myself.” (John 7:16-17) We can apply this same principle to knowing that the Bible is truly from God. All those who desire to obey God will know by the very words of the Bible that it is indeed from God himself.

This is an astonishing argument, since most people would claim that simply hearing Jesus’ teaching could never be enough. They would have to see miracles before they could believe Him to be from God. Jesus even challenged his hearers to believe because of the miracles He had performed (John 14:11). Yet, did everyone believe in Jesus when they saw these undeniable miracles? No, even when faced with miraculous proof, many remained in their unbelief. The reason for this is found in Jesus’ original answer—­only those who truly want to do God’s will shall know the truthfulness of Christ’s message (John 7:17).

The Bible itself is sufficient proof for all who desire to know if it is from God. This can be clearly seen in a story that Jesus told about a rich man and Lazarus, found in Luke 16:19-31. As Jesus concludes the parable, He explains that if they will not believe the message of the Word of God based on its inherent authority, neither will they believe that message if an undeniable miracle was performed. The Bible itself is all the proof that is needed; it is self-authenticating. There is no need for additional proofs or miracles to establish the authority of God’s Word. It stands on its own."

How Can We Know That the Bible is from God? (tms.edu)

 

Edited January 27 by blackbird

[blackbird]

13 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

All religions are the inventions of men. 

"Here are some evidences that the Bible is inspired (God-breathed), as declared in 2 Timothy 3:16:

1) Fulfilled prophecy. God spoke to men telling them of things He would bring about in the future. Some of them have already occurred. Others have not. For example, the Old Testament contains more than 300 prophecies concerning Jesus Christ’s first coming. There is no doubt that these are prophecies from God because of manuscripts dated from before the birth of Christ. These were not written after the fact but beforehand.

2) The unity of Scripture. The Bible was written by approximately 40 human authors over a period of approximately 1,600 years. These men were quite diverse. Moses, was a political leader; Joshua, a military leader; David, a shepherd; Solomon, a king; Amos, a herdsman and fruit picker; Daniel, a prime minister; Matthew, a tax collector; Luke, a medical doctor; Paul, a rabbi; and Peter, a fisherman; among others. The Bible was also written under a variety of circumstances. It was written on 3 different continents, Europe, Asia, and Africa. Yet, the great themes of Scripture are maintained in all the writings. The Bible does not contradict itself. There is no way, apart from God the Holy Spirit supervising the writing of the Bible, that this could have been accomplished.

Contrast this with the Islamic Qur’an. It was compiled by one individual, Zaid bin Thabit, under the guidance of Mohammed’s father-in-law, Abu-Bekr. Then, in A.D. 650, a group of Arab scholars produced a unified version and destroyed all variant copies to preserve the unity of the Qur’an. The Bible was unified from the time of its writing. The Qur’an had unity forced upon it by human editors.

3) The Bible presents its heroes truthfully with all of their faults and weaknesses. It does not glorify men as other religions do their heroes. Reading the Bible, one realizes that the people it describes have problems and do wrong just as we do. What made the heroes of the Bible great was that they trusted in God. One example is David, who is described as “a man after God’s own heart” (1 Samuel 13:14). Yet, David committed adultery (2 Samuel 11:1-5) and murder (2 Samuel 11:14-26). This information could have easily been omitted from Scripture, but the God of truth included it.

4) Archaeological findings support the history recorded in Scripture. Though many unbelievers throughout history have tried to find archaeological evidence to disprove what is recorded in the Bible, they have failed. It is easy to say that Scripture is untrue. Proving it to be untrue is another matter. In fact, it has not been done. In the past, every time the Bible contradicted a current “scientific” theory, the Bible was proven later to be true and the scientific theory wrong. A good example is Isaiah 40:22. All the while that science declared the earth to be flat, the Bible stated that God “sits on the circle [sphere] of the earth.”

The Bible’s claims of being from God should not be understood as circular reasoning. The testimony of reliable witnesses—particularly Jesus, but also Moses, Joshua, David, Daniel, and Nehemiah in the Old Testament, and John and Paul in the New Testament—affirms the authority and verbal inspiration of the Holy Scriptures. Consider the following passages: Exodus 14:1; 20:1; Leviticus 4:1; Numbers 4:1;Deuteronomy 4:2; 32:48; Isaiah 1:10, 24; Jeremiah 1:11; Jeremiah 11:1–3; Ezekiel 1:3; 1 Corinthians 14:37; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; 2 Peter 1:16–21; 1 John 4:6.

Also of interest are the writings of Titus Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian who wrote during the first century A.D. Josephus records some events which coincide with Scripture. Considering the evidence given, we wholeheartedly accept the Bible as being from God (2 Timothy 3:16)."

Is there proof for the inspiration of the Bible? | GotQuestions.org

[SpankyMcFarland]

3 hours ago, blackbird said:

Actually, it is fairly easy to show that is not correct.  Almost all religions of the world are false, but there is one truth that the Bible reveals to mankind.

So you believe you profess the only true religion in the history of mankind? Doesn’t that sound unlikely? As one writer put it:

“I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” —Stephen F Roberts

Now I don’t dismiss religion lock, stock and barrel - the fact that every culture has had at least one suggests it played a key role in human groups - but I wouldn’t be playing favourites and naming one as the winner. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 27 by SpankyMcFarland

[blackbird]

5 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

So you believe you profess the only true religion in the history of mankind?

The purpose of the Bible is not to give a history of mankind.  

Unger's Bible handbook says what the purpose of the Bible is:

quote

The Bible was given to bear witness to one God, Creator, and Sustainer of the universe, through Christ, Redeemer of sinful man.  It presents one continuous story -- that of human redemption.  This story is a progressive unfolding of the central truth of the Bible that God in His eternal counsels was to become incarnate in Jesus Christ for the redemption of fallen man.

The unfolding of this central truth of redemption is set forth through history, prophecy, type and symbol.  This revelation of human redemption through Christ orients man in the larger framework of God's plans for him in the ages of time, as well as the divine purpose for him in eternity.   unquote

Perhaps if you were to study the Bible and then compare it to other religions or their so-called holy books, you would find they are as different as night and day.

But if you have not studied and just dismiss it out of hand, you are setting yourself on a dangerous course because the Bible tells us the what our problem is, and how it can be rectified.  It tells us how we can be redeemed by God's grace through faith in Jesus Christ.  The Bible details who he is and what he did for mankind and why.  Without this knowledge we could be lost for eternity.  One might say this is more than life or death.  Life or death refers to the short span of time we live in this world and then our body dies.  But there is a spiritual world out there and an eternity and we were created with a body, soul, and spirit.  What happens after death is really what matters.  How we prepare for that is what we are talking about.

 

 

Edited January 27 by blackbird

[TreeBeard]

@blackbird

I recall you were warned before by the mods about spamming the forum with cut/pastes with religious propaganda, weren’t you?   Or am I mistaken?

[blackbird]

28 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

@blackbird

I recall you were warned before by the mods about spamming the forum with cut/pastes with religious propaganda, weren’t you?   Or am I mistaken?

You were mistaken and it's not propaganda.  It is information in reply to a comment. Propaganda only in your devilish thinking.  You have a history of being a s__t disturber on here.

Edited January 27 by blackbird