View Single Post
  #6  
Old January 20th, 2022, 12:49 AM
Murf's Avatar
Murf Murf is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
O/S: Windows XP Pro
Posts: 17,424
One can extend biblical historicity to the evaluation of whether or not the Christian New Testament is an accurate record of the historical Jesus and of the Apostolic Age. This tends to vary depending upon the opinion of the scholar.

The Catholic Church also teaches the inspiration and inerrancy (and material sufficiency) of the Bible (see Dei Verbum 11). But does it believe in Scripture Alone — what I would call the “exclusive sufficiency” of scripture? No. Because if everything that we believe must be tested against the text of scripture, that’s also true for the belief in Scripture Alone itself.

The problem the church has with the bible is that it does not tell the story as they would like. Their history has been one of lies since what they did was alter the bible so as to fit their suggested point of view as to who is God. One prime example of this was that they removed the Name of God from the bible and even to this date they refuse to use His name in any form of worship. Now that’s strange since Gods name originally appeared in scripture more than 7000 times. That’s right 7000 times. How then can they prove anything with the lies and contemptuous acts against the written word of God that they are guilty of. Just for those who might have never heard that name because they are associated with the church Gods name is JEHOVAH.

I was raised in the Catholic church and attending 8 years of Catholic school. My parents were devote Catholics, I am not. The argument that the Bible can be proven has been on-going for centuries.

Enough said.....
Reply With Quote