So I was raised baptist...?

Question

and they taught me that not only are catholics not christians but that they are an instrument of satan and that the antichrist would come from the catholic church. Now history teaches that the books the were included in the bible were decided upon by... the catholics. So... if you get your rule book from the perverbiel enemy could you not have been decieved?

I am not telling lies nor am I making things up.

It was the nicean council that decided what books were in and what books were out. And I was taught that growing up perhaps not all churches teach this, I wouldnt know but flat out denial and fussing DO NOT CHANGE FACTS!

Youre an idiot damien.

Answer 1

No one can answer this for you. Read the Bible, and some books on the history of Christianity. Do not rely on the interpretation of someone else for you personal spirituality. I would also suggest that you attend the services and (perhaps discussion groups) of numerous denomination.....when asked Jesus said..."He who is not against us, is for us"

Answer 2

"How and when was the canon of the Bible put together?"



Answer: The term "canon" is used to describe the books that are divinely inspired and therefore belong in the Bible. The difficult aspect of determining the Biblical canon is that the Bible does not give us a list of the books that belong in the Bible. Determining the canon was a process, first by Jewish rabbis and scholars, and then later by early Christians. Ultimately, it was God who decided what books belonged in the Biblical canon. A book of Scripture belonged in the canon from the moment God inspired its writing. It was simply a matter of God convincing His human followers which books should be included in the Bible.

Compared to the New Testament, there was very little controversy over the canon of the Old Testament. Hebrew believers recognized God’s messengers, and accepted their writings as inspired of God. There was undeniably some debate in regards to the Old Testament canon. However, by 250 A.D. there was nearly universal agreement on the canon of Hebrew Scripture. The only issue that remained was the Apocrypha…with some debate and discussion continuing today. The vast majority of Hebrew scholars considered the Apocrypha to be good historical and religious documents, but not on the same level as the Hebrew Scriptures.

For the New Testament, the process of the recognition and collection began in the first centuries of the Christian church. Very early on, some of the New Testament books were being recognized. Paul considered Luke’s writings to be as authoritative as the Old Testament (1 Timothy 5:18; see also Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7). Peter recognized Paul’s writings as Scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16). Some of the books of the New Testament were being circulated among the churches (Colossians 4:16; 1 Thessalonians 5:27). Clement of Rome mentioned at least eight New Testament books (A.D. 95). Ignatius of Antioch acknowledged about seven books (A.D. 115). Polycarp, a disciple of John the Apostle, acknowledged 15 books (A.D. 108). Later, Irenaeus mentioned 21 books (A.D. 185). Hippolytus recognized 22 books (A.D. 170-235). The New Testament books receiving the most controversy were Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 John, and 3 John. The first “canon” was the Muratorian Canon, which was compiled in (A.D. 170). The Muratorian Canon included all of the New Testament books except Hebrews, James, and 3 John. In A.D. 363, the Council of Laodicea stated that only the Old Testament (along with the Apocrypha) and the 27 books of the New Testament were to be read in the churches. The Council of Hippo (A.D. 393) and the Council of Carthage (A.D. 397) also affirmed the same 27 books as authoritative.

The councils followed something similar to the following principles to determine whether a New Testament book was truly inspired by the Holy Spirit: 1) Was the author an apostle or have a close connection with an apostle? 2) Is the book being accepted by the Body of Christ at large? 3) Did the book contain consistency of doctrine and orthodox teaching? 4) Did the book bear evidence of high moral and spiritual values that would reflect a work of the Holy Spirit? Again, it is crucial to remember that the church did not determine the canon. No early church council decided on the canon. It was God, and God alone, who determined which books belonged in the Bible. It was simply a matter of God convincing His followers of what He had already decided upon. The human process of collecting the books of the Bible was flawed, but God, in His sovereignty, despite our ignorance and stubbornness, brought the early church to the recognition of the books He had inspired.

Answer 3

Question: "How and when was the canon of the Bible put together?"
Answer: The term "canon" is used to describe the books that are divinely inspired and therefore belong in the Bible. The difficult aspect of determining the Biblical canon is that the Bible does not give us a list of the books that belong in the Bible. Determining the canon was a process, first by Jewish rabbis and scholars, and then later by early Christians. Ultimately, it was God who decided what books belonged in the Biblical canon. A book of Scripture belonged in the canon from the moment God inspired its writing. It was simply a matter of God convincing His human followers which books should be included in the Bible.
Compared to the New Testament, there was very little controversy over the canon of the Old Testament. Hebrew believers recognized God’s messengers, and accepted their writings as inspired of God. There was undeniably some debate in regards to the Old Testament canon. However, by 250 A.D. there was nearly universal agreement on the canon of Hebrew Scripture. The only issue that remained was the Apocrypha…with some debate and discussion continuing today. The vast majority of Hebrew scholars considered the Apocrypha to be good historical and religious documents, but not on the same level as the Hebrew Scriptures.
For the New Testament, the process of the recognition and collection began in the first centuries of the Christian church. Very early on, some of the New Testament books were being recognized. Paul considered Luke’s writings to be as authoritative as the Old Testament (1 Timothy 5:18; see also Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7). Peter recognized Paul’s writings as Scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16). Some of the books of the New Testament were being circulated among the churches (Colossians 4:16; 1 Thessalonians 5:27). Clement of Rome mentioned at least eight New Testament books (A.D. 95). Ignatius of Antioch acknowledged about seven books (A.D. 115). Polycarp, a disciple of John the Apostle, acknowledged 15 books (A.D. 108). Later, Irenaeus mentioned 21 books (A.D. 185). Hippolytus recognized 22 books (A.D. 170-235). The New Testament books receiving the most controversy were Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 John, and 3 John. The first “canon” was the Muratorian Canon, which was compiled in (A.D. 170). The Muratorian Canon included all of the New Testament books except Hebrews, James, and 3 John. In A.D. 363, the Council of Laodicea stated that only the Old Testament (along with the Apocrypha) and the 27 books of the New Testament were to be read in the churches. The Council of Hippo (A.D. 393) and the Council of Carthage (A.D. 397) also affirmed the same 27 books as authoritative.
The councils followed something similar to the following principles to determine whether a New Testament book was truly inspired by the Holy Spirit: 1) Was the author an apostle or have a close connection with an apostle? 2) Is the book being accepted by the Body of Christ at large? 3) Did the book contain consistency of doctrine and orthodox teaching? 4) Did the book bear evidence of high moral and spiritual values that would reflect a work of the Holy Spirit? Again, it is crucial to remember that the church did not determine the canon. No early church council decided on the canon. It was God, and God alone, who determined which books belonged in the Bible. It was simply a matter of God convincing His followers of what He had already decided upon. The human process of collecting the books of the Bible was flawed, but God, in His sovereignty, despite our ignorance and stubbornness, brought the early church to the recognition of the books He had inspired.

Answer 4

Some men made up their own rules in the Catholic church years ago. Like money and confessing. Give money and you will go to Heaven. They would not let others read the Bible and told people what was in the Bible. When the Bible was able to be re-printed, the people found out what was in the Bible and split off into other churches. Catholics to this day think just because they are Catholics they will go to Heaven, but other churches think this as well. ( I am not saying the whole religion, just some people) Not sure why your Church would say such nasty things about a religion. that tells me yours isn't any better than the rest. We are supposed to be forgiving and not point the finger at anyone no matter what they believe. Wonder were the info on the anti chirst came. The Bible? please share with us.

Answer 5

Yes, there are some people think that the Catholics are antichrist. This misbelief comes from the fact tha Catholicism inherit the "throne" of Roman Empire which condamned by the book of Revelation as the Antichrist. Some even relate the number 666 with the sum of Pope's name in Latin symbols.

But Jesus himself never wants this to happen. Despite all distortion that taught by the Roman Catholic Church, they're still our brothers & sisters in Christ. We us the same bible and pray to the same God. They also admit the trinity and regard Jesus Christ full divinity as God.

The antichrist is a hebrew descendant. And some text like the book of jude says that he is a Christian who falls. A little we know about who he is.

We should not speculate about useless things like that. Jesus wants us to be His disciple, and do His teachings not hate each other.

Answer 6

I think you need to do more research on that so called fact. The books of the Bible are sure and true, alot of the teachings of the Bible the catholics are totally contradicting them and therefore they would be contradicting themselves if they placed them in the Bible and then are not following them. For example, Mary being in Heaven and we should pray to her, purgatory, infant baptism, Sunday worship, etc. all these are not Biblical yet they practice and preach them.

The Holy Scriptures, Old and New Testaments, are the written Word of God, given by divine inspiration through holy men of God who spoke and wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. In this Word, God has committed to man the knowledge necessary for salvation. The Holy Scriptures are the infallible revelation of His will. They are the standard of character, the test of experience, the authoritative revealer of doctrines, and the trustworthy record of God's acts in history. (2 Peter 1:20, 21; 2 Tim. 3:16, 17; Ps. 119:105; Prov. 30:5, 6; Isa. 8:20; John 17:17; 1 Thess. 2:13; Heb. 4:12.)

Answer 7

The books in the KJV were decided by Christians that's why the Catholic Bible will have books like Tobith, Wisdom and Macabees you will not be familiar with. Our Bible and theirs aren't the same. Trust me I was raised a baptist kid too and a Catholic Bible will feel very foreign.

Answer 8

Isn't logic illuminating?

Your Baptist upbringers were wrong; Catholics are a variety of Christian.

Perhaps God has a special, isolated part of Heaven set aside for Baptists, so they can remain happy in their belief that they're the only ones there....

Answer 9

If you look at 1 Corinthians 11, especially the second part of the chapter, you can see that every Christian congregation has problems, no matter which denomination.

Answer 10

u are right, in Revelations the Roman Catholic Church is mentioned as the Whore of Babylon, mother of all Harlotts.
Catholics worship idols, and pray to Mary - that is a clear warning and a sign that they are polytheists.