@svidgen : 1st, the OT, then the NT existed in separate books & letters or parts of books. Then under Constantine's & Cc direction these documents (along with several documents that were rejected), the new state-sanctioned Cc (not following Jesus' teaching) began to assemble the Bible. However, as I pointed out above God declared the end from the beginning & therefore He, having power over everything, made sure the correct books were included.

Again, the Cc started with wrong teaching from their beginning. Just like God used unsaved Romans to fulfill prophecy He also uses unsaved people & even churches to do His work, as everything done on earth is for the benefit of the actual saved people. I think you need to more carefully reread my posts. More detail about this matter is within them.

Regarding the saints: All real true beleivers are S(&s are the same)aints already. Furthermore, all saints, having died before us are dead (=asleep b/c they will not be resurrected [awakened] until Jesus returns -1 Thess 4:13-17). The point is that all the Apostles, Mary & all other saints, being dead (there is only about 4 exception from BEFORE Jesus), can't hear your prayers nor help you. Therefore, this Catholic teaching is false & Jesus said leave the dead to bury the dead.

Also, only God & Jesus have the power to make someone a saint & therefore, no church has any authority to raise anyone to Sainthood (especially, regarding anyone who has died already). Furthermore, Jesus is to be the only mediator btwn us & God (1 Tim 2:5). Mary didn't stay a virgin. She had children after Jesus (Matt 12:46-50). Assuption of Mary isn't in the Bible (1 Cor 4:6 -don't go beyond what is written). She died like all other saints. Mary was a sinner like all other humans

=Immaculate Conception is a lie (again, its not in the 66 legit Bible books). Only Jesus was to be born w/o sin. This was b/c only Jesus was sent to fulfill the the OT Law so that the new more perfect NT covenant could begin. Jesus is the center (Acts 4:12) & only way to God (Jn 14:6) not dead saints, "human" type priesthood, popes, Vatican, mass (rituals), altars, statues (God isn't into dead things), pictures, mechanical rituals, rites, human traditions, sacraments, confession,

thrones, holy see, candles, incese, rings, confirmation, stations of the cross, creeds, monks, nuns, purgatory, devotionals, eucharist, holy water,cross (symbol of the curse not Jesus+same reasons against statues), catechism, penance, traditional & repetitive type prayers, chants, ORAL claims (all of these things were only needed under the OT covenant or they are Pagan & are not needed nor used under the NT covenant & are not in the NT or they are not in the Bible at all).

B/c all these things range from being abominations to being anti-Christ to being anti-Biblical to being non-Biblical neither Jesus nor Peter nor Paul nor the 11 other Apostles would ever have been members of the Catholic church. While the Catholic church is the longest surving "organized" church using the "Christian" label it has no connection to the original churches. While Martin Luther saw many things that were wrong with the Cc he didn't know that the very fooundation of the Cc was corrupt &

the wrong format (a quasi OT format). Those who came after Luther then made the mistake of keeping the Cc's worng format. In turn, this caused many splits in the Protestant churches as they tried to "patch" various misinterpretations of Scripture & even the sprouting of several non-Biblical religions. This is why we have the "Chiristian" mess that exists today.

@user9712 I didn't read all that. You began with the assumption that, although Catholics were responsible for compiling the NT, they were wrong. That's all you need to say. "The Church came first."

But you think they were wrong.

And that's fine. You're welcome to think they were wrong. But, you seem to acknowledge that the Church compiled the canon [of documents written by members of the Church] to sort of supplement its teachings, and then someone decided the Chuch's teachings were wrong, and that the scriptures were actually compiled correctly "coincidentally" to be correctly interpreted an entirely different way.

Not impossible. But, it seems like a strange contortion of reason and history to assume that the Church, although wrong, compiled a list of books and letters to match its own teachings, so that a thousand and a half years later, someone else could come along and interpret it correctly.

@user9712 I'm not Catholic, but I can't let you get away with this: "Theres about a 240 yr gap btwn Peter's death & start of the organized Cc." That's just not true.

Peter and Paul were apparently martyred during Nero's persecution (mid-60s), and a rudimentary hierarchy was in place before the end of the first century. Bishop Clement of Rome wrote with advice to the Corinthians in the mid-to-late 90s, and Ignatius of Antioch wrote seven letters to various churches and individuals shortly before his martyrdom in 117.

For that matter, Paul had appointed Titus and Timothy as Bishops in Crete and Ephesus, respectively. So an organized, catholic church started very early.

And by the late second century, Irenaeus was writing the five-volume Against Heresies to defend Christian doctrine as handed down from the Apostles to their hand-picked successors, and to catalog the errors of various groups.

Now if you're talking about the state church of Rome, then yes, that was a couple centuries later. But to say there was no organized Catholic Church before the Nicene Council is to misread history.

@BruceAlderman You are potentially my new favorite non-Catholic Christian. ... and if this were the proper forum, I might ask what your particular reasons are for being ... Methodist?

But for now, I'll just appreciate your sane understanding of early Church history.

The new Noah movie is getting flack from YEC's, naturally. And paramount basically says "Deal with it." Good for them.

More YEC News: Ham is building some Ark thing at the Creation Museum, and it ain't cheap.

> Nye said he was "heartbroken and sickened for the Commonwealth of Kentucky" after learning that the project would move forward. He said the ark would eventually draw more attention to the beliefs of Ham's ministry, which preaches that the Bible's creation story is a true account, and as a result, "voters and taxpayers in Kentucky will eventually see that this is not in their best interest."

I wonder if following comments about each other are going to devolve into name calling and the like?

Comment on the article. I thought it was funny.

> It always seems to take an act of God to get a construction project to finish on time.

Now that's funny.

@svidgen : You miss the point. The Bible contains the truth. While many had their eye on the church (its authority) God had already set up the Bible to preserves the truth for all. The people who put the Bible together were focused on making sure they put the right books in b/c they afraid that not doing that would create an even larger controversy (has to do with laws of physics). Within this group were people who feared God enough to want the Bible to contain the correct books.

@user9712 I have a strong sense that I'm not missing your point. I simply think it's a senseless one.

I have an equally strong sense that you're missing my point. But, you probably just think it's a senseless one.

I think this reenforces something I stated earlier. Effectively, people are not convinced by reason. They only use reason to validate those things of which they are already convinced!

When I checked the patterns btwn what is writteh in the OT & NT & then other books that the Cc added later, it became clear that the original 66 books were in fact correctly chosen. When the Cc started the general format of their practices were already being used so no one thought much about about it as the Cc now claimed & had the authority behind the church setup (again, you must remember most people were illiterate at that time). The Cc format was then passed on & most people wouldn't dare

You don't make any sense to me. And it's clear I make no sense to you.

to upset the status-quo. Well if you ever want to make sure you are not taking a wrong path may I suggest rereading all that I posted. I take this route -before I join anything I check everything written about & against whatever they claim so I won't fall into any wrong "reasoning" trap since that is what Jesus warns against in the Bible.

All I really intend to communicate here is that I think you're wrong. Very wrong. I think there's a better understanding out there. And I hope you realize that, because the knowledge and understanding of it that I have brings me spectacular amounts of joy. You should have that too.

But, I don't expect you to type anything like, "holy crap, you're right!" The best I can hope for is you to doubt the falsities in your understanding. And the best you can hope for in me is to do the same.

And I will. I have pretty regular doubts and questions that I bring to God. And while you haven't raised any doubts I haven't brought to God before, I'll be sure to bring them there again.

Wait a sec ... does bold not work here?

err ... bold ...

I don't understand what's preventing me from adding some emphasis to the quote above.

@user9712 This may not be your intent, but you're coming across as saying that you're the only one here who has studied the Bible. I can guarantee you that's not the case.

@BruceAlderman : Even if I was off by 20 or even 50 yrs the point is that the NT writer were already waring churches that corruption & wolves were already infiltrating the churches. Labels/titles/names, history/# of members/amnt of time it existed/claims about them[ie persecution, famous land ownership, bones -God isn't into dead things] are meaningless. Whats practiced makes it the whole truth or a lie.

@user9712 It may be worth pointing out [again] that the same NT writers were cautioning their audiences to "hold fast to the traditions handed down to them." And there is pretty clear documentation of a valid Church hierarchy in addition to to the false prophets.

Dernit! ... sometimes I can't not respond. My apologies.

Naming a dog god-doesnt make it God. You can name anything anything (i.e. Jesus & Biblical prophets weren't muslims as Islam claims. Therefore, using the label "Christian" or "Catholic" doesn't give credibity or right authority that things were being done Biblically correct. Again, the use of the word Catholic (meaning universal) isn't in accordance with God's 1 true message & the original Apostles would not have used that label.

@user9712 Let me clear one thing up for you. The Catholic Church doesn't believe itself to have any authority on the grounds that it is "The Catholic Church." That would be an asinine and ridiculous claim. Equally as asinine, in my opinion, is the insinuation that it's the claim the Church is making.

The claim is quite simple, actually. Because Jesus affirmed that Peter (and the other 11) had received The Truth, they did. After that, Jesus wasn't physically present to affirm anyone's handle on The Truth. But, before he left, he conveniently told us who had the authority to make such affirmations -- at least twice, actually.

That we call it "The Catholic Church" or "The Church" today is terminology. What we care about are two things: The "The Church" holds fast to the same beliefs that Peter did. And that our authorities have authority by a sacramental act of affirmation (Holy Orders) that they know The Truth.

1 can be orgaized in doing things but whether its being done correctly is dependant on whether it can be lined up with & proved to be Biblically correct. My conclusions come from 1st studying & understanding Jesus from the 4 Gospels (including going to the whole OT to see where His teaching came from -everything Jesus taught is in the OT) then I weigh all the Apostles wrote against Jesus' teachings, then I do the same with anyone who comes along afterward making sure they're claim is Biblical.

@BruceAlderman : Right theres a big difference btwn being organized for right reasons & being orgaonized for wrong reasons. Incidently, the use oi the word "Catholic" was actually a marketing ploy designed to draw in as many of the masses as they could get to go along. Again, that is not what God's 1 true Biblical message. Just b/c some well-meaning person used the word catholic in the 2nd century doesn't mean it was proper or that it had anything to do with what became the Cc in the 4th century.

@svidgen : Sadly, the majority of human do not take God & the Bible seriously enough. If they had we might not have the "Christian" mess that exists today. The BIble has severe warnings in it. Many are not going to make it b/c they won't heed the warnings. Again, the Bible is not wrong which means the warnings are true right down to the last letter & dot. Many ways seem right but their end is death =Matt 7:21-23. Do you want to be in Heaven or do you want to be with people not caring enough?

@user9712 You realize, of course, that the "last dot" you're referring to was put there by a translator, right? ... And that even the original scriptures has wording variations ... right?

@svidgen : What the Cc calls traditions & what the Bible refers to as traditions* are 2 different animals. Biblical traditions are with regard to things actually listed &/or described in the NT, not things outside the Bible -1 Cor 4:6 **be careful not to go beyond what is written.. Many things Catholic aren't in the Bible & dwarf things that might be Biblical. Word to the wise: Its useless to patch a tire tube thats full of holes. & if its not in the Bible its not from God.

The Bible contains the truth that stands forever unchanged. Jesus wasn't talking out 2 nor 1000s of side of His mouth =no confusion. Again, God outsmarted man. He alwaays knew that man would try to twist His word & used an unchangeable" system in the Bible that surpasses gets around any translator's mistake or man's slant or perversion. Only the wise will seek to understand. Its why I use **word for word versions like the ESV & RSV. King James was good in its day but

its in older English not used for 100s of years. Why do people want to have to desipher an old language? Its hard enough already to find the truth in the Bible. Why make it harder. Using KJV only helps promote Biblical ignorance. Back to the Cc. The Cc claims they didn't give out BIbles for over 1000 yrs b/c people couldn't read (it was illegal for "commoners" to own Bibles back then -only clery were allowed to have them). Why didn't the Cc teach them to read? It was b/c they wanted to maintain