"Why do Catholics and Protestants have different books in their Bibles?"
(www.youtube.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (26)
sorted by:
Oh, you silly goose. I said Jesus founded a church, not a bible. The question is the logical extension of that.
If Jesus ascended into heaven in 33 AD or so, and the first gospel was written about 20 years later (they were written early, don't let atheist scholars convince you otherwise), what do you think that means?
That means we should all worship some awful sinner who wears a funny hat because he later falsely claims to speak for Jesus, right?
Or no, it means we should consider books scripture which ancient Hebrews never did because of that?
No, and no.
I'm trying to be charitable here, but your ignorance and anger is making you dumb.
You follow Talmud jews who didn't like those books, whereas Jesus himself used the Septuagint, which included them. Simple really.
And Jesus put Peter in charge, but nobody "worshiped" him, do you agree or disagree with that?
Peter was not in charge. That's a misreading of the passage. Jesus is the rock. There was no "vicar of Christ" among the apostles.
The Vatican is an anti-Christ institution with the blood of countless Christians on its hands. If you support them and ignore people telling you the truth, you're in grave danger spiritually.
Reformers weren't following Talmudic Jews, least of all Martin Luther who wrote "On the Jews and their lies" calling out the Jews in detail. You don't know what you're talking about and even if I am ignorant of some things (who isn't) that doesn't make my overall thesis wrong.
Peter wasn't the leader of the apostles? LMAO.
Even your heretic protestant buddies admit that. https://www.gotquestions.org/life-Peter.html
Luther wrote his books against the jews at the end of his life, jews helped the "reformation" when it started, and he thought he could convert them. Embittered by them, he saw through their lies but to late, to late.