a light in the darkness

[Brother Adam]

Catalyst, you clearly have not done your reading, or have choosen to stick with Boettner and company.

Many of us here, myself included have already sifted through the same ignorant misunderstandings you have and have come out on the other side finding ourselves not only all the more alliegant to the Holy Scriptures, but Catholic to boot.

I have yet to find a single Catholic doctrine contrary to the Holy Scriptures. As cmom said, it wouldn't make any sense anyway. The Scriptures are Catholic.

You also mistake the Church of God for a denomination. It is not. It is a universal church, with Christ as it's head, guiding it's will.

I believe you should start with the basics is you are to try to adequately debate Catholic scholars: What Catholics Really Believe by Keating. And get yourself a copy of the Catechism.

Because until you are willing to accept what the Catholic Church teaches compared to your misconceptions, you are in no position to reject her teachings.

[Catalyst]

Your wrong about scriptures and the times they where written
below is some quick info you might be interested in...




Matthew
Date Written - A.D. 55-70.
Matthew is mentioned in the Epistle of the Smyrnaeans by Ignatius of Antioch dating about A.D. 110. This would place its writing before this period. The book would be dated somewhere between A.D. 55 and A.D. 70. Critical scholars date it after A.D. 70 basing their judgments on the assumption that Jesus could not have predicted the future destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. There is no good reason to doubt that Matthew wrote the book between A.D. 55-70 from Antioch in Syria.



Mark
Date Written - A.D. 60-70.
It is generally believed that Matthew and Luke used Mark in the composition of their Gospels. This would mean that Mark is the earliest writing and could not be any later than A.D. 70 which was the date of the destruction of the temple of Jerusalem. It is generally accepted that Mark was written between A.D. 60-70 and most hold to the early 60's.

Luke
Date Written - A.D. 63.
There seems to be more compelling evidence to place the date of Luke and Acts in the early 60's. The book of Acts ends with Paul still under house arrest and it would seem likely that if Luke knew of Paul release or death he would have mentioned it at the end of his book. For this reason it would seem appropriate to date his writings around A.D. 63.

A late date of around A.D. 70-80 has been suggested by some but Luke does not mention that the prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem (Luke 21:20) was fulfilled and this seems to be his practice on other occasions. (Acts 11:28)

A late date does not seem probable. Luke probably wrote his works from Rome and sent to wherever Theophilus was living at the time.

John
Date Written - A.D. 89-90.
The traditional view of the early Church holds that John wrote his gospel toward the end of his life around. A.D. 89-90.

Acts
Date Written - A.D. 63.
There seems to be more compelling evidence to place the date of Luke and Acts in the early 60's. The book of Acts ends with Paul still under house arrest and it would seem likely that if Luke knew of Paul's release or death he would have mentioned it at the end of his book. For this reason it would seem appropriate to date his writings around A.D. 63.

A late date of around A.D. 70-80 has been suggested by some but Luke does not mention that the prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem (Luke 21:20) was fulfilled and this seems to be his practice on other occasions. (Acts 11:28) A late date does not seem probable. Luke probably wrote his works from Rome and sent to where Theophilus was living at the time.

Romans
Date Written - A.D. 55-57.
The traditional view is that Paul wrote Romans between A.D. 55 and the early months of A.D. 57. Paul wrote that he was prepared to bring an offering to the believers who were in need in Jerusalem. (Romans 15:25-27) He had already received the offering from the Macedonians and so this would place Paul either in Corinth or its port Cenchrea. (Romans 16:1-2; Acts 20:2-3)

1 Corinthians
Date Written - A.D. 55.
On Paul's third missionary journey Paul wrote First Corinthians from Ephesus about A.D. 55. (1 Corinthians 16:7-9)


2 Corinthians
Date Written - A.D. 55.
On Paul's third missionary journey Paul wrote Second Corinthians from a Macedonian city probably Philippi about A.D. 55. (2 Corinthians 8:10-24)

Galatians
Date Written - A.D. 54-55.
The date of Galatians is dependent on where the letter was sent. Galatia was not a city but a region in Asia Minor or modern day Turkey. Paul had visited the cities in southern Galatia on his first and second Missionary Journeys. If Paul is writing to these churches then his letter would have been written shortly after his first missionary journey. This date would be around A.D. 49 and probably written from Antioch in Syria. This view would make Galatians one of Paul's earliest writings.

Still others say that Paul was writing the Celtic peoples of northern Galatia. Given this line of thinking Paul probably would have written it after his third missionary journey after passing through Galatia and Phrygia mentioned in Acts 18:23. It is speculated that under this view Paul would have written the letter from Ephesus or in Macedonia on his way to Greece. (Acts 10:1-6) Accepting this view would place its writing in A.D. 54 or 55.

Whichever view is taken does not affect the message of the book. There is no reason to doubt that the Churches mentioned in Galatia were established by Paul during one of his visits.


Ephesians
Date Written - A.D. 60-62
Ephesians is considered a prison epistle because of the many references to Paul's imprisonment. (Ephesians 3:1; 6:20) The Imprisonment is generally thought to be the two years of house arrest in Rome mentioned in Acts 28. This would place the date in A.D. 60-62.


Philippians
Date Written - A.D. 61
Paul gives indication that he wrote the letter while he was in prison. Philippians 1:12-20 However Paul was in prison on several occasions and the question is which imprisonment. The two most likely locations would have been Caesarea A.D. 57-59 (Acts 23:23-26:32) or the Roman imprisonment mentioned in Acts 28 A.D. 61. The Roman imprisonment fit best with his mentioning of 'the palace guard' (Philippians 1:13) and 'Caesar's household'. (Philippians 4:22) While Paul was in prison in Rome it was a house arrest so he was free to carry out the ministry from his home. At this time Paul was not in the Mamertine Prison


Colossians
Date Written - A.D. 60
Paul never visited the city of Colossae. (Colossians 2:1) They had heard the gospel from one of their own named Epaphras. (Acts 19:10) It is to be dated during Paul's first Roman imprisonment when he was under house arrest. (Acts 28:16-31) It was here that Paul wrote all of his prison epistles. It would be dated along with Ephesians and Philemon in A.D. 60.

1 Thessalonians
Date Written - A.D. 50-51
Paul wrote the letter of 1 Thessalonians from Corinth with the help of Silas and Timothy. 1 Thessalonians 3:6-7 The three were all together in this one location according to Acts 18:5; 2 Corinthians 1:19.

Acts 18:12 states that Gallio was proconsul of Achaia. The date that Paul wrote first Thessalonians can be determined if the date that Gallio was proconsul at Corinth can be determined. In 1909 a mutilated inscription was discovered at Delphi which named Gallio as proconsul and associated him with the twenty-sixth acclamation of the Emperor Claudius. On the basis of this data the office of Gallio has been generally set at A.D. July 51 to July 52. And since Paul had already been at Corinth a year and a half when Gallio arrived, Paul must have come to Corinth near the end of the year A.D. 49 or 50. Paul wrote the letter soon after he began his work there. This would date the letter around A.D. 50-51 making it the earliest letter of Paul.

The subscription in the KJV reads, 'The First Epistle to the Thessalonians was written from Athens.' Though this note is found in some old Manuscripts, it is evidently a mistake. It records a tradition that evidently arose out of a misunderstanding of Paul's words in 3:1. These subscriptions were not written by Paul and are not authoritative.

1 Timothy
Date Written - A.D. 62-64
It would seem that Paul wrote first Timothy following the events recorded in Acts 28. The book of Acts does not give the account of Paul's death. There is strong early church tradition which seems to support a fourth missionary journey and second imprisonment in Rome at which time Paul died at the hands of Nero. Paul gave confident statements in both Philippians and Philemon that he would soon be released from house arrest. (Philippians 1:25-26; Philemon 22)

Paul would have been released from his first imprisonment around A.D. 62 and Nero died in A.D. 68 so the letters of first and second Timothy and Titus would have been written during this period. General agreement is that he wrote his letters between A.D. 62-68.


2 Timothy
Date Written - A.D. 64-68.
Paul wrote 2 Timothy during his second Roman imprisonment around A.D. 64-68. (2 Timothy 1:8; 2:9) This was the last letter Paul wrote.


Titus
Date Written - A.D. 62-64
Paul wrote to Titus while he was on his fourth missionary journey around A.D. 62-64. 1 Timothy was composed around this same time.

Philemon
Date Written - A.D. 60-61
Paul wrote it from Rome around A.D. 60, 61. Paul likely sent this letter along with his letter to the Colossians. Philemon was a believer living in Colossae who owned slaves. Paul sends a runaway slave Onesimus back to his master with the letter of appeal to Philemon to accept his slave back.
Hebrews
Date Written - A.D. 65
The date in which it was written can be considered from two aspects, external and internal evidence. The external evidence is very uncomplicated and narrows the date down to before A.D. 96. Clement of Rome was known to have used the epistle to the Hebrews to write to the Corinthians. Since it is agreed that Clement wrote around A.D. 96, Hebrews was written before this date.

The internal evidence further helps to pinpoint a date. Hebrews 2:1-4 indicated that it was written during the lifetime of the second generation of Christians, and was at a considerable interval after the conversion of the readers. Hebrews 5:12 They had no recollection of the earlier days when they had stood their ground in great persecution, and now they are being persecuted again and failing. (Hebrews 10:32-36) Their leaders had died and Timothy had been imprisoned and released. (Hebrews 13:7, 23) The mention of the priesthood seems to indicate that the Temple was still standing but soon to be destroyed. Hebrews 12:27

The date of about A.D. 65 would suite all of these requirements as the church of Rome was fearing persecution and the Jewish suppression were both about to happen.

James
Date Written - A.D. 44-62
James has been dated at between A.D. 44-62. If it is dated at about A.D. 45-49 then it is the earliest book in the New Testament. James died in A.D. 62 and persecution broke out around A.D. 44. That would mean that there were trials and persecutions very early in the life of the church.

1 Peter
Date Written - A.D. 60-68
From 1 Peter 5:13 it is evident that Peter was in Babylon when he wrote this letter. However this does not give an exact location. It could be the Babylon in Mesopotamia but it could also be a military outpost in Egypt by the same name. It could also represent Rome which was understood as Babylon in a figurative way. (Revelation 17:5,9) Rome may be a very likely possibility as Mark is known to have been with Paul in Rome and Mark was with Peter when he wrote 1 Peter 5:13.

If Rome was the Babylon Peter refers to and the place of writing then the date would likely be between A.D. 60 and 68. There is indication that Peter was familiar with the letters of Ephesians and Colossians. That would establish the earlier date of A.D. 60 when these letters were written and A.D. 68 was the date when Peter was traditionally crucified.

1, 2 & 3 John
Date Written - A.D. 90-95
All four writings of John are usually dated near the end of the first century, somewhere between A.D. 90-95. Thus, as an old man in the final years of his life, he looks back to his experiences with his Lord, and writes of his memories and addresses the current problems in the church.



2 John
Occasion
This letter along with third John are personal letters of John. Both letters are addressed to individuals and deal with personal matters. Second John is written to a chosen lady and her children. John challenges them to walk in the truth and to be on guard against false teachers in the church. John appeals for discernment in the Christian walk. The ultimate test is not their sincerity but the doctrine of the deity of Christ. If the deity of Christ is denied then there is to be no Christian greeting or hospitality with the false teachers as this would be partaking in the evil work

3 John
Occasion
This letter was written to Gaius to encourage him in his hospitality by reminding him of John's joy in seeing him welcome strangers into his house. But this church was also not without its problems. In John's final letter he begins to name names. Diotrephes was a gossip who loved to have the attention of being first. V.9 He was also involved in slandering John, and excommunicating those in the church who disagreed with him. John writes to tell Gaius that he would deal with him when he came to visit. The letter ends on a positive note of encouragement with Demetrius mentioned as a faithful servant in the church.

Jude
Date Written - A.D. 65-67
The date is difficult to determine with any amount of accuracy. There are close similarities with the letter of second Peter that have led some scholars to think that Peter used Jude in writing his letter. If this is the case then Jude would have been written before second Peter putting its date around A.D. 65-67. The church or churches it was sent to is unknown


Revelation
Date Written - A.D. 95
The book of Revelation was written during a period of severe persecution. There are two major period of persecution in the Early church the first is under the reign of the Roman Emperor Nero (A.D. 54-68). The other period was under the reign of Domitian (A.D. 81-96) Most scholars agree that the persecution addressed in Revelation was during the reign of Domitian placing the date of composition around A.D. 95.



putogether in the 4th century? perhaps. Written?...no....

Edited January 13, 2005 by Catalyst

[Catalyst]

the scriptures are not catholic, but Christian.

[Socrates]

Catalyst. I agree with you on the dating of the Scriptures, but I don't see how this argues against the Catholic Church.

The One Holy Catholic Universal Church was the Church founded by Jesus Christ Himself. I have yet to see a convincing argument that it is not.

[Catalyst]

the catechism contradicts these very scriptures. do i need to show more examples now?

Tho i do not agree with all of luthers ideals...i can't say i do as i have not studied them. you show watch a movie called luther. Its very well done.

Edited January 13, 2005 by Catalyst

[Eucharistaholic]

Catalyst,

Boy you have a lot to say about the dates of scripture. You must be a biblical scholar. Either that or you copied and pasted a bunch of stuff from [url="http://www.abu.nb.ca"]http://www.abu.nb.ca[/url]

Please give us a point in your words, not just inundate the thread with a bunch of cut and paste from "Atlantic Baptist University".

It says interfaith dialogue, so please dialogue.

Peace,
E-aholic

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Catalyst' date='Jan 12 2005, 11:53 PM'] the scriptures are not catholic, but Christian. [/quote]
Catholics are the first Christians, being members of the Church founded by Jesus Christ. We are not some splinter group, we are the original Christians in an unbroken church 2000 years old.

If you are a member of the Jewish faith, your religion was founded by Abraham about 4,000 years ago.
If you are a Hindu, your religion was developed in India around 1,500 B.C.

If you are a Buddhist, your religion split from Hinduism, and was founded by Buddha, Prince Siddhartha Gautama of India, about 500 B.C.

[b]If you are Catholic, Jesus Christ began your religion in the year 33. [/b]

If you are Islamic, Mohammed started your religion in what is now Saudi Arabia around 600 A.D.

If you are Eastern Orthodox, your sect separated from Catholicism around the year 1000.

If you are a Lutheran, your religion was founded my Martin Luther, an ex-Monk of the Catholic Church, in 1517.

If you belong to the Church of England (Anglican), your religion was founded by King Henry VIII in the year 1534 because the pope would not grant him a divorce with the right to remarry.

If you are a Presbyterian, your religion was founded when John Knox brought the teachings of John Calvin to Scotland in the year 1560.

If you are a Unitarian, your religious group developed in Europe in the 1500's

If you are a Congregationalist, your religion branched off from Puritanism in the early 1600's in England.

If you are a Baptist, you owe the tenets of your religion to John Smyth, who launched it in Amsterdam in 1607.

If you are a Methodist, your religion was founded by John and Charles Wesley in England in 1744.

If you are an Episcopalian, your religion was brought over from England, to the American colonies and formed a separate religion founded by Samuel Seabury in 1789.

If you are a Mormon (Latter-Day Saints), Joseph Smith started your church in Palmyra, N.Y., NOT Salt Lake City, which would have been my guess. The year was 1830.

If you worship with the Salvation Army (yes, it's a religious group, not just an organization that collects money in kettles on Christmas and serves dinners to the homeless), your sect began with William Booth in London in 1865.

If you are a Christian Scientist, you look to 1879 as the year your religion was founded by Mary Baker Eddy.

If you are a Jehovah's Witness, your religion was founded by Charles Taze Russell in Pennsylvania in the 1870's.

If you are a Pentecostal, your religion was started in the United States in 1901.

If you are an agnostic, you profess an uncertainty or a skepticism about the existence of God or a Higher Being.

If you are an atheist, you do not believe in the existence of God or any other higher power.

[spathariossa]

[quote name='Catalyst' date='Jan 12 2005, 10:11 PM'] the catechism contradicts these very scriptures. do i need to show more examples now?

Tho i do not agree with all of luthers ideals...i can't say i do as i have not studied them. you show watch a movie called luther. Its very well done. [/quote]
Very anti-catholic you mean.

Yes, those are the dates the actual books of the new testament were written. I merely meant that it was not until the 4th century that these books were compiled into one coherent new testament. Furthermore, they were not recognized as the inspired word of God until the council in the 4th century. And guess what, it was the Catholic church that decided they were the inspired word of God. Oops.

You can't be a historian and a protestant.

[Catalyst]

very anti-catholic? so you say thats a lie? That roman catholics did not do these things?


you say you can't be a historian and a protestant...but I see the the fruit of the roman catholic church and the confusion inside it these days over modern issues.
I read the the catechism and see contradiction after contradiction and whole doctrines based on one verse forgetting what the rest of the bible has to say. Its the bible that God had put together. Its the the bible that James calls our mirror, not the catechism. Yeah, i found that posting awhile back and studied as I'm extremely interested in the bible and its history. I'm stillinterested in a proper relationship with God almighty. Its relationship with God, not thesaints, why pray to them and not the source of thier wisdom and actions anyhow?

You can't love God unconditionally if your roman catholic. You put others before Him and take your focus off of God just like Peter did before He began to sink. What does th chruch continue to do...sink and adapt to todays popular opinion. God never changes so why should His church.


i could be wrong but doesn't the vatican have golden toilets?

Edited January 13, 2005 by Catalyst

[spathariossa]

[quote name='Catalyst' date='Jan 12 2005, 11:36 PM'] very anti-catholic? so you say thats a lie? That roman catholics did not do these things?


you say you can't be a historian and a protestant...but I see the the fruit of the roman catholic church and the confusion inside it these days over modern issues.
  I read the the catechism and see contradiction after contradiction and whole doctrines based on one verse forgetting what the rest of the bible has to say. Its the bible that God had put together. Its the the bible that James calls our mirror, not the catechism. Yeah, i found that posting awhile back and studied as I'm extremely interested in the bible and its history. I'm stillinterested in a proper relationship with God almighty. Its  relationship with God, not thesaints, why pray to them and not the source of thier wisdom and actions anyhow?

You can't love God unconditionally if your roman catholic. You put others before Him and take your focus off of God just like Peter did before He began to sink. What does th chruch continue to do...sink and adapt to todays popular opinion. God never changes so why should His church.


i could be wrong but doesn't the vatican have golden toilets? [/quote]
Okay. If you have seen all of those errors, then why don't you show us ONE. That'd be nice.

Oh and God didn't put the Bible together, the Catholic church did. Unless of course you think it was the will of God. But then it'd have to be working through the Catholic church. So umm, either you're wrong or you're wrong.

Edited January 13, 2005 by spathariossa

[Catalyst]

homosexual priests, a whole unbiblical doctrine on Mary. an unbiblical doctrine on purgatory on priesthood. I have an early morning. God Bless.

[Ianny01]

Can you be more specific with the "unbiblical" doctrines on Mary, purgatory, and the priesthood?

Sincerely,
Ianny01

[spathariossa]

[quote name='Catalyst' date='Jan 12 2005, 11:49 PM'] homosexual priests, a whole unbiblical doctrine on Mary. an unbiblical doctrine on purgatory on priesthood. I have an early morning. God Bless. [/quote]
Can you say why a celibate man who experiences SSA isn't fit for priesthood? He's celibate. Or do you think anyone who experiences homosexual urges is doomed to hell? Oh yeah...very scriptural

[cathqat]

[quote name='Catalyst' date='Jan 11 2005, 10:17 PM'] Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead.
[/quote]
Yes, all of those things are clearly forbidden within Catholicism. Catholics do not conjure God's heavenly saints, nor manipulate them, nor attempt to predict the future through them. And they are unquestionably alive in Christ to both God and us, and not dead.

[cathqat]

[quote name='Catalyst' date='Jan 12 2005, 12:10 AM'] i ask where in hebrews does it say to praise those past. [/quote]
The author of Hebrews himself does this throughout chapter 11. The chapter is nonstop praise for the heroic faith of the saints who preceded him.