INCworld logo

        Main Page

        News Group

        Chat Room



       About INCWorld

        Contact Us


Canon of the Bible

(felix matalo) The Pasugo admitted that the Catholic Church is the apostate church. This means that the INC is using the bible of the apostate church! Can you tell us where did you get your bible?

(ktd) The bible is never owned by the apostate church, this you should put it in your brain. the bible is never authored by man. never, never, never!!! you never learned. by your words you seem to suggest your church, the RCC, wrote the bible. was this your point?

to say it at the worst case, even if the "keeper" of these words is the "catholic church", the words of God will never change.... never, never, never! God held the hands of this apostate church to write the things He wants us all to know! the catholic church has nothing to do with it!

got it?

palibhasa, ikaw ay lumuluhod sa mga dios-diosan! that is why you still do not understand. for how could you, only people with debased mind bow down to idols.

(didache)It only goes to show that you are very ignorant of Christian history. You should consider the following points -

a. During the first to the fourth century, Christians do not have a standardize collection of canonical books which we now call the Bible (from Genesis to Revelation). Besides reading books from Genesis to Revelation, there are also other books which the early Christians considered as inspired. Examples are: The Sheperd of Hermas, The Didache, The Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, the writings of St Polycarp, etc. If you don't believe me, pick up any good encyclopedia and look under the heading "bible" to have a better understanding of this. As you would see, I am referring you to an encyclopedia to have an objective and unbiased information about this so you cannot accuse me of using only Catholic sources.

b. It was only during the Council of Rome under Pope Damasus in 382 A.D. that a standard of canon was compiled. Look this up also in an encylopedia to have an unbiased and objective source. Did you know what books did they approved as canonical? Open your Bible and look under the Table of Contents. Yes, those are the same books that they approved. The fact is, the only reason you and I have the Bible is because of the trustworthy teaching authority of the Catholic Church. As St. Augustine put it, "I would not believe in the Gospels were it not for the authority of the Catholic Church." Any Christian accepting the authority of the Bible does so, whether or not he admits it, because he has implicit trust that the Catholic Church made the right decision in determining the canon.

c. Furthermore, the reason you accept the books you do is that they were in the Bible someone gave you when you first became a Christian. You accept them because they were handed on to you. This means you accept the canon of the New Testament that you do because of tradition, because tradition is simply what is handed on to us from those who were in the faith before us. So your knowledge of the exact books that belong in the Bible rests on tradition rather than on Scripture itself! Nowhere in the Bible will we find an inspired "table of contents" to know which are canonical and which are not.

d. Lastly, I would like to know from the INC the exact year this "Great Apostasy" actually started in the history of Christianity. a poster here named Saleem posted a considerable number of Pasugo quotes about this "Great Apostasy" and none of those quotes gave a definite date: either one Pasugo would give the first century, another the fourth, and another a different date. When did this "Great Apostasy" really happened, the exact date? Also, granting if this Aspostasy actually took place, how would you account the list of books in your bible right now is similar to the list of books the Councils of Rome, Laodicea, Hippo, Carthage, and Trent approved as canonical.

e. The question you have to ask yourself is this: 'Where did we get the Bible?' Until the INC can give a satisfactory answer, you, aren't in much of a position to rely on the authority of Scripture or to claim that you can be certain that you know how to accurately interpret it.

"See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out[through their office] the appointment 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; 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."

Ignatius of Antioch,Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2(written 110 A.D.)

(saleem) The canon of the bible that you use today was compiled by the Catholic church, whether you admit it or not. That is the reason we have only 4 Gospels, Matthew Mark, Luke and John, and we don't have the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Jude, etc, which were used by some of the churches before the books of the bible were canonized. As with the epistles and Apocalypses. You don't see these books in your bible today because the church decreed that they were either unauthentic or uninspired and were therefore apocrypha.

(pilosopo) Very Funny, this Felix Loser does not even know what is a Canon? A canon is not a compilation, check your facts! Poor guy, what he's trying to show to you KTD is that the Catholic Church allegedly determined which books are divinely inspired and what are not. Ask him if Jerome added the Apocryphal books to his translation of the Catholic Bible into Latin. By the way, the Catholic Church has no Hebrew manuscripts of the Old Testament. What they have are translations of the OT and were revised several times by the popes.

(kirk) We don’t have a Canon... I own a Kodak! Seriously… No Hebrew manuscripts because our Lord Jesus and the Apostles used the Septuagint. The Septuagint was written/translated in Greek.

(didache) I just would like to ask

  1. If Canon is not a compilation, what then is your definition of Canon?

  2. When you said, "the Catholic Church has no Hebrew manuscripts of the Old Testament", what do you exactly mean? Are you saying this because the Catholic Church follows the Septuagint?

  3. Can you give at least one revision the Catholic Church made on the translation of the OT?

(ktd) felix matalo, where are these words? did the catholic church write them? do they own them? nay!!!! i do not need to define you what canon means. all i care is that the words of God are written and they are not owned by the RCC. never never never! any question?

(saleem) So who told you they were the words of God? Did you just wake up one day and found a complete book called the bible and God told you that it's the word of God? How did God tell you? The bible doesn't even say which books should be included. How did you know which books to believe in the bible? Surely you have a better reason than that.

(felix matalo) Thank you for answering for Pilosopo who I think is in hiding right now after exposing the true color of the INC click here

Again, I did not say that the RCC wrote the bible, pls open up your mind, don't believe your ministers so much that you even follow their style of argument of evading the issue.

My question is who decided whether a certain books is inspired or not in the case of the INC?

any question? hehehe

(pilosopo) where did I get my Bible? From God who used several ways for His words to be known to man. Felix Loser, do you have a copy of the Leningrad Codex? I have one. Do you have a copy of Codex Alexandrinus? I have one. Does the Catholic Church use these ancient manuscripts? No! Did you go to the Vatican? You could not find them there!

(didache) another question

  1. You said you have the Leningrad Codex and Codex Alexandrinus, what are you trying to say? Are you saying that you approve the books contained therein, that they should be included in the canon of scriptures?

  2. About those two codices, what are you trying to say when you said they are not found in the Vatican? What's your point in saying that no one can find them there (Vatican)?

(pilosopo) Are you Felix Matalo? He ask me where did I get my Bible? My answer was God used several ways to reveal His words. Answer me first if you're also Felix Matalo. With the rest of your questions, be patient and I'll answer them. Be still, Didache. I have also a Didache in my collection, by the way.

(didache) I am not Felix Matalo. If you believe me or not, that's up to you. Too bad, this post does not include exposing every poster's IP address to distinguish one from another.

Since you're an INC, I would like to get the INC's version of history on how the canon of scripture came about. I would assume that your history would not even touch any councils of or anything about the Catholic Church since you believe its an apostate church and, therefore, no truth can flow from it.

I believe that you have a considerable collection of ancient Christian writings, that's good. I assume that you also have read the writings of Iranaeus, Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, and Athanasius of Alexandria since most of them lived during the early centuries of Chritianity (from 1st to 4th). My questions to you are-

  1. a. Are their writings of God or not? If not, why?

  2. b. Are their writings an important source of early Christian beliefs or not? If not, why?

Remember, most of them lived in close proximity when most of the Apostles of our Lord are still alive on earth.

(felix matalo) Did God reveal also to Felix what books will be considered inspired and what are not? Did God directly gave you the Bible? I will give you an assignment boy, who decided which books are inspired and which books are not?

(ktd) felix matalo, i know you will never understand this. one more miracle, you will be kissing the remains of mother teresa: her hair, teeth, rings, dress and anything she touched during her life! i bet you, you are waiting for this. perhaps you may even be buying "stampitas" to insert them to your bible. here it comes...



SUN, AUG 19, 2001 11:57:52 ET

All of India, and much of the Catholic world, has been buzzing about the presentation to the Vatican this week of the case of an Indian woman said to be the recipient of Mother Teresa's first miracle -- a significant step toward Teresa's canonization.


Monica Besra, a mother of five, says that on Sept. 5, 1998 -- a year to the day after Teresa died -- she was writhing in pain from an abdominal tumor at a home run by the Missionaries of Charity.

"There was no way any doctor would have operated on me at that hour," she says.

"So the nuns just started praying and kept a Mother Teresa medallion on my stomach."

Besra tells TIME magazine editions hitting racks on Monday: "The pain subsided, and the tumor vanished."

Episcopal Bishop Salvatore Lobo, head of a team that will deliver 35,000 pages of Teresa's good deeds to the Vatican, says, "This miracle meets the

requirements. It is organic, permanent, immediate and intercessionary in nature."

A second miracle is still required for sainthood.


only in the RCC! get away from this forum!

(felix matalo) You cannot answer my post regarding the origin of your bible so you chose to post something which is off topic. EXCUSE ME BOY, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE USE OF THE INC OF THE BIBLE OF THE APOSTATE CHURCH HEHEHE.

(ktd) come on! when you bow down to the remains of these people whom you have designated to be already in heaven, mother teresa will be around your neck and kissed by many people in your church, what make your church different from those captured by the devil!

i am not evading the question, mr. felix matalo, i am just pointing to you the practice of this kind is not of God. it is of the devil.

which church is this? your church. i can show you a parade of these stones and carved woods and people in your congregation bowing down to them and wiping their dead bodies as if to transfer "miraculous" power to their own selves.

whom did the bible come from? it am positive - the source is from God and not the RCC. it would be an insult to all of us here when you say that the author of these books is the rcc. never never and never.

these are the words of God and not from your popes or anybody else!

Whom do you think the bible come from? from you?

get out of my way! unchain those creeping things in your church. yak!!

(felix matalo) I did not say that the true church (RCC) wrote the bible. What I am saying is that who decided for the INC what books will be included in the New Testament? Did you have a council to decide which books are inspired or not? Come on boy... answer me and don't follow the style of your ministers hehehe.

(ktd) felix matalo now admitted that their church (rcc) has nothing do with with the words of God. true, true and very true! they are not the author of the bible. i may say and repeat that they had been the lousy librarian and deceiving keeper: ready to change these books to their heart's content. wanna bet? by the way have you taken out your necklace with mother teresa and st. christopher dangling around your neck. take them out. you will understand better our discussion. you know this is from a debased mind!

(felix matalo) This guy is really trying very very hard to evade the issue, but sorry boy I will not say AMEN like what you are doing everytime your minister quote something from the bible. Never did I say that the RCC is the author of the bible hehehe. AGAIN I will ask you the question which I believe you will not answer anyway. Where did Felix get his bible? Where did Felix know that the New Testament will have only four gospels and not 5 or 6. Did you have a council that declared these books as inspired? . Please enough of your perversion of the Bible, you are what we can call in Filipino as "walang utang ng loob" You are like Felix Manalo who (after being ordained by ministers of other denominations) called them ministers of satan.

(didache) ktd, just answer Felix Matalo's question It's obvious from the thread that you cannot give a straight answer. What you can do is ask any of your minister and post it here. We will be waiting for your answers, ok?

(ktd) i remember when i was growing up, i have seen many priests and nuns wearing scapulars and other things around their necks. perhaps felix matalo in his young days had these much just like them. they know nothing what they mean to their beliefs.

now talking about the bible. do you think they know what they are talking about. they do not even know who is of the bible as if to tell they (rcc) wrote the bible? they are still debating among themselves. of course the words of God came from Him and not the RCC. in my own terms they are just the lousy librarian during those times.

i had been pointing this topic many times to end this race - which is the true church of Christ? definitely, it is not the RCC (Roman Catholic Church). to me, this is of the devil and not of God. this church is the harlot described in revelation, the prostitute or rather in better word, the whore.

any question?

(felix matalo) granting that the RCC is a lousy librarian, this lousy librarian decided which books to reject and which books to include in the library (during those times).

*** fast forward ***

Year 1913 (14?) a person who did not eat for 3 days declared that he will re-establish the church of Christ upon reading the books the lousy librarian compiled. So Manalo and the INC until now is using the bible compiled by the Apostate Church. hehehe

(gordon cancio) You may be surprized to know that, outside the gospels, most of the oldest New Testament manuscripts date no earlier than the 4th century. (source:"The Text of the New Testament", Metzger, Oxford Univ. Press.,1992). The Chester Beatty Biblical Papyrii (the most completer New testament)is dated to no earlier thatn 250AD

Chapter Divisions were started in the Codex Vaticanus in the 4th century. Titles of chapters and cross references were added in the Codex Alexandrinus and Eusebian Canons in the 5th century. You will be even surprized to hear that PUNCTUATION did not become common in greek translations until the NINTH (9th) century.

What's my point? The assumption made by many anti-catholics is that the RCC apostatized by the death of the Apostles. Seeing that the oldest Bible existant today dates only to 250 AD, a period after the recognition of Christianity by Emperor Constantine, one should be more circumspect about calling the catholic church the harlot in revelation.

(no more entry as of 12:55 pm August 29 2001)