Bible contradiction- need help

[EnterCanaan]

AMEN AMEN!!! to INKANEER, GOD smiles on you. May God grant you infinite mercy for defending the Church. What these people speak is heresy! And their souls are obviously in danger of hell fire for this hard hardheadedness, repent! repent! from your Protestant faulty thinking, we have shown you logically how you are wrong. Yet you cling to your own faulty Bible interpretation and a system of a “salvation plan” that was unheard of on this planet until the 1800s made up by a guy named Nelson Darby, get a grip! Can’t you see we wouldn’t fight you if we didn’t care, honestly Inkaneer and I take the time to debunk your myths about Christianity because ultimately we love those who are brethren in Christ and seek to save your souls. If sarcasm or insult is perceived it is out of frustration or deter any young impressionable minds from eating up this false doctrine. HAHA you make me laugh, EnterCanaan, I must say you are an Apologists worst nightmare, but your arguments are in vain, we will always have logical answers to everything, witness the power that is One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. You are handling the next arguments swell and in favor of God, I shall support you Ink in prayer and if need be further citation and Church teaching, God Bless you!

Inkaneer and This guy, good to hear from you,

So far you have not debunked anything. My source is the bible, for you to call it demonic, is extremely sad and arrogant. Wouldn’t you say. Calling the words of life, the words spoken by God, demonic. Unfortunately for you, I am obviously more versed in BIBLICAL DOCTRINE, because I CAN sight the passages telling you to hold fast to that which you have know since childhood, and that the Holy Scripture is the source of all good all knowledge all understanding, and that it is profitable for doctrine, as well as for **correction **and **instruction **in righteousness.

You have not debunked anything because you can’t sight the bible to back you up. All you have is feelings, and a mind locked into preconcieved knowledge. PRECONCEIVED… means you are UNWILLING to be CORRECTED or INSTRUCTED by the Bible. As the Word of God is the ultimate authority.

Everything the church teaches, comes from the word of God. The only thing the apostles taught, was the scripture. The scripture is Gods law. They taught Gods law.

Now how do you debunk that. Did they supposedly teach their own ideas of Gods law, their own made up law. Did they. What did they teach? what is it that they used, that we have today? What is the same exact word, that was begun by Moses and finished with John, did they use, that we also use, and is the exact same and unchanging word started by Moses and finished with John. Is it the Scripture. Is the Scripture the authority they used, did they teach that God DIED for them and that He is the author and authority in life and death. Or did they decide to just go and say hey that’s not right, this is what God meant, this is what you should be doing.

ITS THE SAME.

Also, I was born in 79 not the 1600. and I have the same bible my dad gave me 15 years ago. And I picked it up and studied it and PAID ATTENTION to its teachings and developed an understanding and harmony, My source is the bible. That is not demonic. My doctrine is sound because it is backed up by scripture, read in the light of its a parable, and compared scripture to scripture for harmony. You have MANY DIVERSE SOURCES… Different authorities who have changed time and time again. The bible is one unchanging authority. Get a grip buddy!

finally, WITHOUT A PARABLE HE DID NOT SPEAK. duh, man, how many times do you try to debunk the actual teaching of the bible, i thought you trusted the word of God, holy smokes. The bible is the authority, not oral teachings, oral teachings change, oral teachings become tradition and ceremony and fables. The bible is GODS WRITTEN WORD. contained in ONE AVAILABLE PLACE. These words are what God wants to teach us, available for the whole world, Not some mysterious and vague teaching that belongs to a select group, that is not the will of God. The will of God is for the early church to go out and PREACH THE GOSPEL!!! KNOWLEDGE FOR THE WHOLE WORLD, not some secret extra mysterious church teaching that only applies if your a member. BZZSZZZ!!! WRONG!! sorry buddy, but you can’t debunk a sound biblical apologetic. My source is backed by scripture and a more well rounded understanding of scripture, and if you want to argue the point of debunk then do it biblically or write down whatever law or town meeting you think has more authority, but do it logically and connect the dots as I do every single time and yet you can’t take a moment to ponder its meaning before trying to get your last word in

I also want to bring people a better understanding. That is why I take some time to teach accurate biblical teaching, and I show how to do it and where I got it and I say, “dont believe me, look in the bible, I’m helping you by showing you how to look in the bible, and Im saying apply the rules, think about it, pray about it”

If Christ spoke in parables, do you think He meant EAT HIS FLESH. If Christ spoke in parables, then eat my flesh has a spiritual meaning, does it not. He is the WORD MADE FLESH. Eat my FLESH, THE WORD MADE FLESH. wow. see a connection there. IT is spiritual. The word is spiritual sustenance. spiritual life. Eat my flesh, this bread is my flesh. Flesh-Word… Bread-Sustenance. Wow okay… hmm so the WORD IS SUSTENANCE.

For he who has eyes let him see, its all a parable. Can you see that?

 

[inkaneer]

Inkaneer and This guy, good to hear from you,

So far you have not debunked anything. My source is the bible, for you to call it demonic, is extremely sad and arrogant. Wouldn’t you say. Calling the words of life, the words spoken by God, demonic. Unfortunately for you, I am obviously more versed in BIBLICAL DOCTRINE, because I CAN sight the passages telling you to hold fast to that which you have know since childhood, and that the Holy Scripture is the source of all good all knowledge all understanding, and that it is profitable for doctrine, as well as for **correction **and **instruction **in righteousness.

You have not debunked anything because you can’t sight the bible to back you up. All you have is feelings, and a mind locked into preconcieved knowledge. PRECONCEIVED… means you are UNWILLING to be CORRECTED or INSTRUCTED by the Bible. As the Word of God is the ultimate authority.

Everything the church teaches, comes from the word of God. The only thing the apostles taught, was the scripture. The scripture is Gods law. They taught Gods law.

Now how do you debunk that. Did they supposedly teach their own ideas of Gods law, their own made up law. Did they. What did they teach? what is it that they used, that we have today? What is the same exact word, that was begun by Moses and finished with John, did they use, that we also use, and is the exact same and unchanging word started by Moses and finished with John. Is it the Scripture. Is the Scripture the authority they used, did they teach that God DIED for them and that He is the author and authority in life and death. Or did they decide to just go and say hey that’s not right, this is what God meant, this is what you should be doing.

ITS THE SAME.

First of all no one called the Bible demonic. I would appreciate it if you would not violate the Commandment against bearing false witness. I called the protestant doctrine of sola scriptura demonic and I stand behind that statement 100%. Any research of the early church would reveal that it did not operate on sola scriptura. Evidence of that is recorded in the scriptures in Acts 15 when at the Council of Jerusalem the scripture records the Apostles as saying thusly:

“28 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: 29 that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.” [Acts 15:28-29]

Notice there was no appeal to scripture. The Church claimed a direct inspiration from the Holy Spirit. They claimed authority to issue this decree without consulting scripture. They did this because of Jesus’ words in John 14:26:

" But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you." [John 14:26]

Notice Jesus does not command the Apostles to write down what the Holy Spirit will teach them and to be sure only 5 Apostles wrote any scripture. What about the other 7? Were they not inspired also? Where is the scripture they produced under inspiration of the Holy Spirit? Did you know that the Apostle Thomas went to India and converted people there. Did you also know that this church founded by Thomas grew and was totally unknown by the western church until it was “rediscovered” in the 14th century by Portugese explorers? And did you know that despite not about the Bible this church was found to have correct doctrine and is today recognized as always having valid Apostolic Succession. No sola scriptura.

You have swallowed the sola scriptura doctrine as proposed by Luther in the 16th century. That should be a red flag to you because any new doctrine, especially one that contradicts over 1500 years of established doctrine. And what was that established doctrine? That established doctrine stated that Jesus imparted the deposit of the faith and entrusted it with the Apostles. These Apostles preached the gospel and ordained other men to follow in their footsteps assuming the office of teachers. They also committed part but not all, of their teaching to writing. That is why the Holy Spirit (name removed by moderator)ired Paul to tell the Thessalonians [and you too] that they must hold onto the oral teaching as well as the written teaching. These men ordained by the Apostles starting with Matthias along with Titus, Timothy, Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Elvodius and others carried on the teaching of the Apostles. They did not write scripture nor did they have access to all of the NT if indeed they had access to any of it. What they did have was the oral Teaching of the Apostles ringing in their ears. And that teaching continues to day in the validly ordained episcopsy. That is why, if you look at the early church, the Apostolic line of succession was so important to them. It was the church’s pedigree. But you church has no valid Apostolic Succession. No bishop joined the protestant rebellion. Luther knew that and He also knew that without Apostolic Succession he had no authority. All he was left with for authority was scripture which he could, in fulfillment of Peter’s prophesy, twist to his own destruction [2 Peter 3:16].

 

[inkaneer]

Also, I was born in 79 not the 1600. and I have the same bible my dad gave me 15 years ago. And I picked it up and studied it and PAID ATTENTION to its teachings and developed an understanding and harmony, My source is the bible. That is not demonic. My doctrine is sound because it is backed up by scripture, read in the light of its a parable, and compared scripture to scripture for harmony. You have MANY DIVERSE SOURCES… Different authorities who have changed time and time again. The bible is one unchanging authority. Get a grip buddy!

finally, WITHOUT A PARABLE HE DID NOT SPEAK. duh, man, how many times do you try to debunk the actual teaching of the bible, i thought you trusted the word of God, holy smokes. The bible is the authority, not oral teachings, oral teachings change, oral teachings become tradition and ceremony and fables. The bible is GODS WRITTEN WORD. contained in ONE AVAILABLE PLACE. These words are what God wants to teach us, available for the whole world, Not some mysterious and vague teaching that belongs to a select group, that is not the will of God. The will of God is for the early church to go out and PREACH THE GOSPEL!!! KNOWLEDGE FOR THE WHOLE WORLD, not some secret extra mysterious church teaching that only applies if your a member. BZZSZZZ!!! WRONG!! sorry buddy, but you can’t debunk a sound biblical apologetic. My source is backed by scripture and a more well rounded understanding of scripture, and if you want to argue the point of debunk then do it biblically or write down whatever law or town meeting you think has more authority, but do it logically and connect the dots as I do every single time and yet you can’t take a moment to ponder its meaning before trying to get your last word in

I also want to bring people a better understanding. That is why I take some time to teach accurate biblical teaching, and I show how to do it and where I got it and I say, “dont believe me, look in the bible, I’m helping you by showing you how to look in the bible, and Im saying apply the rules, think about it, pray about it”

If Christ spoke in parables, do you think He meant EAT HIS FLESH. If Christ spoke in parables, then eat my flesh has a spiritual meaning, does it not. He is the WORD MADE FLESH. Eat my FLESH, THE WORD MADE FLESH. wow. see a connection there. IT is spiritual. The word is spiritual sustenance. spiritual life. Eat my flesh, this bread is my flesh. Flesh-Word… Bread-Sustenance. Wow okay… hmm so the WORD IS SUSTENANCE.

For he who has eyes let him see, its all a parable. Can you see that?

It matters not when you are born. We all stand on the shoulders of those who have gone before us. In your case you stand on the shoulders of men who invented new doctrine in the 16th century. But God is immutable. That means He is unchanging. Protestants like to say God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. So try this experiment. Compare your worship service to that of the early church. See if there is any difference. I think you will fine a big difference. What you will find is that the early church worshipped by what was then called the “breaking of the bread” and today is called the Divine Liturgy or The Mass. Scripture records it:

“And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers” [Acts 2:42]

As far as Jesus always speaking in parables that is not always the case. I really doubt you know what a parable is. I suggest that before you mislead people about what the Bible says that you yourself do formal study because the consequences of misleading people are severe. See Matthew 23:15.

 

[SemperReformada]

Sure there is. Show me where scripture tells us to worship on the first day of the week rather than the Sabbath. Show me where scripture records that the Trinity is composed of persons with the same substance. Show me where scripture records that Jesus had two natures and two wills. 2 Thess 2:15 was never abrogated. It is God’s written word and is immutable. Show me the passage that says God’s word is written only in a book. Show me where scripture records what books are scripture. Those are off the top of my head, there is a lot more.

While I disagree with you on the issues you bring up not being found in scripture (ecept for the index of the canon…obviously) you did answer my question, thank you.

I don’t wish to argue but do have a few questions I hope you will answer.

1.) Do you believe the scriptures are materially sufficient for salvation? In other words do you believe scripture contains or implies all that is needed for salvation?

2.) Do you believe all the various Catholic beliefs such as but not limited to the queenship of Mary, the assumption, treasury of merit, etc. are found within the pages of scripture or do you believe there are some Catholic beliefs which are found entirely in Tradition and not scripture?

3.) Your church claims to be infallible and has no doubt defined the limits of scripture via the various councils (Trent for example). As far as I know there is no infallible canon of what is and what isn’t included in Tradition. Do you see that as a handicap in anyway? If not, why not?

 

[inkaneer]

6017089;EnterCanaan:

Actually, what I did was trust in the bible, and from the many verses and complicated themes, I pulled together one congruent teaching in harmony. also, your logic is flawed obviously because I said I MADE THREE RULES FOR MYYYYYYY BENEFITITTTTTTT FORRRR MEEEEEE. So I would not forget to apply them when studying scripture.

The result is that I remember to apply them to scripture, and you have no idea what Im talking about because you have never seriously studied the bible, or if you do, you don’t completely trust in the bible, or if you do, you seemed to have forgotten to apply teachings of the bible to the bible.

Bible doctrine is not my doctrine, and biblical doctrine is the authority over all other doctrine. When Jesus said I am the bread of life, it was a parable. Remember, He spoke in parables and without a parable He did not speak. He was speaking metaphorically, and saying that HE[JESUS, THE WORD] **IS **the way to everlasting life. That He[JESUS, THE WORD] **is **the bread, the metaphorical bread, the spiritual bread. He wasn’t talking about a physical piece of flour and water, that is a sign pointing to the spiritual meaning which is the THE **WORD **IS THE BREAD. We eat bread for nourishment, Jesus **is **spiritual nourishment. His Word, which is the bible is the same Word, that was made flesh. The word is Spiritual, as is the nature of God. The word is the bread of life. Jesus is the word made flesh. Jesus, who is the word, is the bread of life. Where is the bread of life found, it is found in the word. Where is the word found today? In the bible! The words of God are in the bible, The word is the bread of life. It means seek Jesus in His word. Read the bible. Study the bible Eating bread as a sign of Christianity and faith, is alll work. it is WORK. We are not saved by our work. It means nothing to God. Studying the word of God has spiritual value, eating bread has physical value, it is a MEMORIAL fine, which is in REMEMBRANCE of Him.

But as long as you portray yourself as the God appointed divinely inspired interpreter you will get nowhere

Your cliche and tired last resort tactic is stupid.

I present sound, well thought out, logical biblical apologetic. I invite you to discuss instead of attack.

What you did was to interpret the scriptures in a novel manner that is completely at odds with established christian teaching that has existed for 2,000 years. Your rules have led you to heretical teachings. I suggest that you abandon your rules and instead study with someone who is much more knowledgable than you. I suggest the early church writers like Irenaeus, Origin Cyril, and those pillars of the early church. You claim that I haven’t studied the bible but you are wrong. I have. Bible doctrine is not the “authority over all doctrine” as you claim. The scripture makes that abundantly clear when it proclaims the church as the pillar an bulwark of truth. See 1 Ti 3:15:

“But if I tarry long , that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth” [1 Ti 3:15]

Can you show me a scripture passage that says, “…biblical doctrine is the authority over all other doctrine.”? I would like to see it. By the way 2 Timothy 3:16:

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:” [2 Timothy 3:16]

is not it for while scripture is profitable for doctrine the verse does not say, “…biblical doctrine is the authority over all other doctrine.”

Your ad hominem attack on me by calling me stupid tells me that you are not interested in debate. You have never responded to the majority of my points but only manage to repeat your own beliefs like a broken record. That is not indicative of a desire to debate but only to talk past one another. It is a waste of time. I leave you to your heretical views. Maybe one day you will be able to see the error of your thinking. I will pray that you do.

 

[inkaneer]

While I disagree with you on the issues you bring up not being found in scripture (ecept for the index of the canon…obviously) you did answer my question, thank you.

I don’t wish to argue but do have a few questions I hope you will answer.

1.) Do you believe the scriptures are materially sufficient for salvation? In other words do you believe scripture contains or implies all that is needed for salvation?

Allow me to answer your questions one at a time: First of all regarding the sufficiency of scripture, I am not sure what you mean by the term “material sufficiency”. If you mean that scripture contains all of the material one needs for theology and that this material is sufficiently clear that one does not need apostolic tradition or the Church’s magisterium (teaching authority) to help one understand it. Then my answer is no. Rather I belief that Jesus established a church similar in organization to the Davidic kingdom in which the King [Jesus] ruled with his ministers [Apostle/bishops] and with one minister being named as chief steward [Peter] who had the keys to the kingdom and the authority to act in the name of the king. You will find this portrayed in Isaiah 22:21-22:

“21 And I will clothe him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand: and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. 22 And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open , and none shall shut ; and he shall shut , and none shall open” [Isaiah 22:21-22]

I see the NT fulfillment of this in Matthew 16:18-19:

“18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” [Mt 16:18-19]

Further I see Peter being made shepherd of Jesus’ sheep:

"15 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” 16 A second time he said to him, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” 17 He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” And he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep.” [John 21:15-17]

In that passage in verses 15 and 17 Peter is toldto feed Jesus’s sheep. The Greek word used is bosko and it means literally to feed. But in verse 16 where the RSV has the word “tend” [The KJV says “feed”] the Greek word is not bosko. Rather it is poimaino and poimano means “to rule” or “to govern”. This tells me that Jesus established a church with the power to rule or govern and that power [authority] is centered on that chief steward who is Peter. That tells me that there is another authority other than the Bible.

Additionally, one must realize why we have a Bible. There was no attempt in the first 300 years of christianity to assimilate the sacred writings into one volume that we now call the Bible. In fact, different writings were considered worthy of teaching that did not make it into the canon. There was no uniformity among the various locations. Of course, during much of this time the church was preoccupied with survival as it was hunted down and persecuted. But with the formal end to the persecutions in 313 AD coupled with the rise of Gnosticism and its spurious writings claiming apostolic authorship confusion grew as to which writings could be read in church during the Divine Liturgy. This ultimately led to the synods of Rome, Hippo and Carthage which set the canon of the scriptures as we know them and of course Jerome’ *Vulgatta * which was the first Bible as we know it. The important thing here is that the Bible was a liturgical book and not a self study guide to Christology. It would take another 1100 years, over a millenium later, for someone to deny church authority and only accept scripture as authority.

 

[Danno2281]

Cora you are not reading all of EnterCanaan’s posts, he is a protestant who is a Dispensationalist, the very Catholic Encyclopedia verse Danno quoted STATES that he accepts a Heretical Protestant doctrine, are you reading that right??? Jeez…please for the last time read the thread, I beg the mods to close it already because either people have serious reading comprehension issues or are just NOT reading everything, it’s worthless.

If you read Cora’s post rightly, she was responding to my quotation from the Catholic Encyclopedia, hardly a “dorky” source.

 

[Danno2281]

Inkaneer and This guy, good to hear f
Everything the church teaches, comes from the word of God. The only thing the apostles taught, was the scripture. The scripture is Gods law. They taught Gods law.

If Christ spoke in parables, do you think He meant EAT HIS FLESH. If Christ spoke in parables, then eat my flesh has a spiritual meaning, does it not. He is the WORD MADE FLESH. Eat my FLESH, THE WORD MADE FLESH. wow. see a connection there. IT is spiritual. The word is spiritual sustenance. spiritual life. Eat my flesh, this bread is my flesh. Flesh-Word… Bread-Sustenance. Wow okay… hmm so the WORD IS SUSTENANCE.

For he who has eyes let him see, its all a parable. Can you see that?

How can you possibly say that the on ly thing that the apostles taught was the scripture? What scripture was it that they taught on Pentecost? Scripture relates what they taught, but not all of what they taught, (see Heb. 6:1 ff. Do you know what the doctrine of the laying on of hands is ? the doctrine of baptism? Baptists see something very different from what other Christians see using only the scriptures as the teaching) and the teaching came before the scripture.
As for flesh being the Word, can you not see the difference between the Word made flesh and the word that reveals the Word? The Word made flesh, the bread, of which Jesus says, “Take this and eat; his is My Body,” is not the scriptures. Jesus did not give the apostles a book to eat.

 

[EnterCanaan]

How can you possibly say that the on ly thing that the apostles taught was the scripture? What scripture was it that they taught on Pentecost? Scripture relates what they taught, but not all of what they taught, (see Heb. 6:1 ff. Do you know what the doctrine of the laying on of hands is ? the doctrine of baptism? Baptists see something very different from what other Christians see using only the scriptures as the teaching) and the teaching came before the scripture.
As for flesh being the Word, can you not see the difference between the Word made flesh and the word that reveals the Word? The Word made flesh, the bread, of which Jesus says, “Take this and eat; his is My Body,” is not the scriptures. Jesus did not give the apostles a book to eat.

oK, I got to hand it to you, I did get ahead of myself forsure. Of course you are right, On Pentecost, when Peter preached, the word that he preached, has yet to be written, had yet to be documented to be considered scripture. so you are completely right,

I suppose the way I was looking at it, was that sinse what Peter said IS CONSIDERED scripture, then that means it was from the Mouth of God.Though on that day, it had yet to be documented for future generations like you and me, nevertheless on that day Peter preached information that is later to be considered scripture.

Now I understand that, though you can see my fault, because I was just grouping what he said in along with the complete word of God. This brings me to my point. Peter preached the word of God. It may not have been scripture, but IT WAS RECORDED, or more accurately, THE EXACT INTERPRETATION THE INSPIRED AUTHOR HAD, IS EXACTLY THE INFORMATION GOD WANTS TO COMMUNICATE. whether Peter preached for 13 hours straight, the part we today, as true believers, only need to concern ourselves with, is the information that God spoke to us and is bound in the bible. This is the definative word, Peter could have preached for 10 days, and if all the words of Christ were to be recoreded it would fill the earth, but that is why we have the word of God as it is. Because we are ONLY TO CONCERN ourselves with what is printed between the lips of the bible. THESE ARE VERIFIED AND DOCUMENTED AND LAW. There is no extra, all the cermons, all the preaching of Peter and Paul and etc is not the words God wanted to communicate, God wanted to communicate exactly what is written in the bible. It is perfect as is God.

Correct

Now the finaly point, All that Peter was preaching, though it was new for that particular day, isn’t it still considered the word of God, still considered scripture. It is bound and documented for future generations, and what is bound and documented is the word of God.

THE EXACT SAME WORD FROM OLD TO NEW, IS ONE CONTINUOUS WORD OF GOD. THE SAME MESSAGE. THE SAME TEACHING, THE SAME AUTHOR OF LIFE THE SAME SAVIOUR.

That is why you compare scripture to scripture, for the WHOLE COMPLETE HARMONY.

this is why there are so many different interpretations, because not everybody understands how to interepret the bible. You read the bible in the light of the whole thing THE WHOLE THING is a parable.and you compare scripture to scripture. you compare what Peter said on Pentecost, to what Luke said in Acts, etc. Its one continuos Word of God. the same message in different words, but the same teaching.

This is why peter did not teach new and mysterious information. He taught the same message in a powerful cermon that changed the history of everything. yet it was still the word of God, God was in control and God spoke the words, only Peter was moved to speak by the Holy Spirit, was Gods cermon, Gods work with the holy spirit, and God teaching the same perfect message as He always has in His word.

That is not what many of you are getting. You don’t seperate Peters church and the bible. They are hand in hand sure, but the church is the PREACH THE GOSPEL AND SPREAD THE WORD. Not over the course of centuries establish new and reverant ways of mass, of taking bread etc.

and jesus is the word made flesh, which is the same as eat my flesh it is my body. Is Jesus saying eat my word. I dont know is it any more fantastic than Jesus saying eat my flesh.

THE WORD IS LIFE. that is the parable. NOT BREAD… HIS BODY IS THE WORD MADE FLESH. THE WORD… WORD.!!!

The word of God is everlasting life, in the parable Jesus spoke, because without a parable He did not speak, He is saying His words, are the words of Life, and consume His word in remembrance of Him. BECAUSE ALL SCRIPTURE IS A PARABLE. AND THE PARABLE ALWAYS ALWAYS POINTS TO CHRIST.

 

[Danno2281]

oK, I got to hand it to you, I did get ahead of myself forsure. Of course you are right, On Pentecost, when Peter preached, the word that he preached, has yet to be written, had yet to be documented to be considered scripture. so you are completely right,

I suppose the way I was looking at it, was that sinse what Peter said IS CONSIDERED scripture, then that means it was from the Mouth of God.Though on that day, it had yet to be documented for future generations like you and me, nevertheless on that day Peter preached information that is later to be considered scripture.

Now I understand that, though you can see my fault, because I was just grouping what he said in along with the complete word of God. This brings me to my point. Peter preached the word of God. It may not have been scripture, but IT WAS RECORDED, or more accurately, THE EXACT INTERPRETATION THE INSPIRED AUTHOR HAD, IS EXACTLY THE INFORMATION GOD WANTS TO COMMUNICATE. whether Peter preached for 13 hours straight, the part we today, as true believers, only need to concern ourselves with, is the information that God spoke to us and is bound in the bible. This is the definative word, Peter could have preached for 10 days, and if all the words of Christ were to be recoreded it would fill the earth, but that is why we have the word of God as it is. Because we are ONLY TO CONCERN ourselves with what is printed between the lips of the bible. THESE ARE VERIFIED AND DOCUMENTED AND LAW. There is no extra, all the cermons, all the preaching of Peter and Paul and etc is not the words God wanted to communicate, God wanted to communicate exactly what is written in the bible. It is perfect as is God.

Correct

Now the finaly point, All that Peter was preaching, though it was new for that particular day, isn’t it still considered the word of God, still considered scripture. It is bound and documented for future generations, and what is bound and documented is the word of God.

THE EXACT SAME WORD FROM OLD TO NEW, IS ONE CONTINUOUS WORD OF GOD. THE SAME MESSAGE. THE SAME TEACHING, THE SAME AUTHOR OF LIFE THE SAME SAVIOUR.

That is why you compare scripture to scripture, for the WHOLE COMPLETE HARMONY.

this is why there are so many different interpretations, because not everybody understands how to interepret the bible. You read the bible in the light of the whole thing THE WHOLE THING is a parable.and you compare scripture to scripture. you compare what Peter said on Pentecost, to what Luke said in Acts, etc. Its one continuos Word of God. the same message in different words, but the same teaching.

This is why peter did not teach new and mysterious information. He taught the same message in a powerful cermon that changed the history of everything. yet it was still the word of God, God was in control and God spoke the words, only Peter was moved to speak by the Holy Spirit, was Gods cermon, Gods work with the holy spirit, and God teaching the same perfect message as He always has in His word.

That is not what many of you are getting. You don’t seperate Peters church and the bible. They are hand in hand sure, but the church is the PREACH THE GOSPEL AND SPREAD THE WORD. Not over the course of centuries establish new and reverant ways of mass, of taking bread etc.

and jesus is the word made flesh, which is the same as eat my flesh it is my body. Is Jesus saying eat my word. I dont know is it any more fantastic than Jesus saying eat my flesh.

THE WORD IS LIFE. that is the parable. NOT BREAD… HIS BODY IS THE WORD MADE FLESH. THE WORD… WORD.!!!

The word of God is everlasting life, in the parable Jesus spoke, because without a parable He did not speak, He is saying His words, are the words of Life, and consume His word in remembrance of Him. BECAUSE ALL SCRIPTURE IS A PARABLE. AND THE PARABLE ALWAYS ALWAYS POINTS TO CHRIST.

And that preaching, that initial message was handed down orally from teacher to student, as was traditional in the ancient world. Do youn realize how illiterate most of the nppeople were? That is why Pauln reminds that faith comes from hearing (not from reading), hearing the message that is handed on from thiose entrusted with passing it on througth the laying on of hands (which brings empowering by the Holy Spirit). This is what we call the deposit of faith.
Interestingly enough, Jesus doesn’t allow your interpretation, because He didn’t leave it at flesh but commanded that we drink His Blood. Now nowhere does the scripture say that the Word became blood, so you “interpretation” falls by the wayside. If you look at 1Cor 11:27, you find that guilt is associated with eating the bread and drinking of the cup (the bread and cup given to the apostles at the last supper)unworthily, but not just some guilt, “guilty of the BODY AND BLOOD of the Lord.” If you believe that Paul is talking about the scriptures here, I question your rationality.

 

[juliamajor]

All Scripture is NOT PARABLE.A parable is a fictional story that teaches a point.There are parables.Some OT most NT. There is also fiction in the Bible. But you are using a broad paintbrush-not all is parabolic.The Bible is full of different genres,similes, metaphors.But a parable is a very specific , narrow form of writing in Scripture. Please don’t confuse genres.It’s inaccurate and confusing.

 

[juliamajor]

This what a parable is-
Parables and Parabolic Images in the Gospels
by Felix Just, S.J., Ph.D.

---

What is a “Parable”?

Definition: “At its simplest a parable is a metaphor or simile drawn from nature or common life, arresting the hearer by its vividness or strangeness, and leaving the mind in sufficient doubt about its precise application to tease it into active thought.” (C. H. Dodd, The Parables of the Kingdom, New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1961, p. 5)

Implications of this definition:

The meaning of most parables is not so obvious, or at least it shouldn’t be. If we assume we know what Jesus is talking about, we are probably missing the main point; if we are too familiar with the story (having heard it so often before), we might not think carefully enough about its real meaning.

Most parables contain some element that is strange or unusual. They should cause you to say, “Wait a minute! That’s not how farmers do their work! That’s not what kings usually do! That’s not what normally happens in nature!” And this strange element should cause you to think!

Parables do not define things precisely, but rather use comparisons to describe some aspect of how God acts or interacts with human beings. Yet to say “A is like B” does not mean that “A is identical to B in all respects”; so one should be careful not to misinterpret or misapply the parables.

Color Print entitled “Parables,” by James C. Christensen, from Swoyer’s Fine Art & Collectibles

---

The Purpose of the Parables?
We might think that Jesus spoke in parables to make it easier for people to understand his message. According to the Gospels, however, he surprisingly does NOT expect everyone to understand them! This is clearly expressed in Matthew 13:10-17:

10 Then the disciples came and asked him, “Why do you speak to them [the crowds] in parables?”
11 He answered, "To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given.
12 For to those who have, more will be given, and they will have an abundance; but from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away.
13 The reason I speak to them in parables is that ‘seeing they do not perceive, and hearing they do not listen, nor do they understand.’ (cf. Isa 6:9-10)
14 With them indeed is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah that says: ‘You will indeed listen, but never understand, and you will indeed look, but never perceive.
15 For this people’s heart has grown dull, and their ears are hard of hearing, and they have shut their eyes; so that they might not look with their eyes, and listen with their ears, and understand with their heart and turn-- and I would heal them.’
16 But blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear.
17 Truly I tell you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see, but did not see it, and to hear what you hear, but did not hear it.
In Matthew, at least the disciples of Jesus understand the parables; but in Mark, even they have a hard time understanding, despite receiving extra instructions in private!
“Have you understood all this?” They [the disciples] answered, “Yes.” (Matt 13:51)
And he said to them [the disciples], “Do you not understand this parable? Then how will you understand all the parables?” (Mark 4:13)
With many such parables he spoke the word to them [the crowds], as they were able to hear it; he did not speak to them except in parables, but he explained everything in private to his disciples. (Mark 4:33-34).

---

 

[juliamajor]

Parables and Parabolic Images in the Gospel according to Mark:

Parable Mark Matthew Luke
Garments & Wineskins Mk 2:21-22 Mt 9:16-17 Lk 5:36-39
Strong Man Mk 3:27 Mt 12:29 Lk 11:21
Sower & Seed Mk 4.3-8 Mt 13:3-9 Lk 8:5-8
[Why Jesus Uses Parables] Mk 4:10-12 Mt 13:10-17 Lk 8:9-10 -
[Interpretation of Sower & Seed] Mk 4:13-20 Mt 13:18-23 Lk 8:11-15 -
Lamp on a Stand Mk 4:21 Mt 5:15 Lk 8:16; 11:33
[Sayings about Jesus’ Parables] Mk 4:22-25 Mt 10:26; 7:2; 13:12 Lk 8:17-18; 12:2; 6:38b
Seed Growing Secretly Mk 4:26-29 [cf. Mt 13:24-30] -
Mustard Seed Mk 4:30-32 Mt 13:31-32 Lk 13:18-19
[Jesus’ Use of Parables] Mk 4:33-34 Mt 13:34-35 - -
Salt Mk 9:50 Mt 5:13 Lk 14:34 -
Wicked Tenants Mk 12:1-11 Mt 21:33-44 Lk 20:9-18
Budding Fig-Tree Mk 13:28-29 Mt 24:32-33 Lk 21:29-31 -
Doorkeeper Mk 13:33-37 - [cf. Lk 12:35-38] -
Total Number of Markan Parables 10 Mt keeps all but 2 Lk keeps all of Mark’s

Additional Parables and Images in both Matthew & Luke, but not in Mark (from the “Q” Source?):
Parable Mark Matthew Luke
Two Houses, Built on Rock or Earth - Mt 7:24-27 Lk 6:47-49 -
Children in the Market Place - Mt 11:16-19 Lk 7:31-35 -
Return of the Unclean Spirit - Mt 12:43-45 Lk 11:24-26 -
Burglar - Mt 24:43-44 Lk 12:39-40
Servant Entrusted with Supervision - Mt 24:45-51 Lk 12:42-46 -
Going before the Judge - Mt 5:25-26 Lk 12:58-59 -
Leaven - Mt 13:33 Lk 13:20-21
Great Supper - Mt 22:1-10 Lk 14:16-24
Lost Sheep - Mt 18:12-13 Lk 15:3-7
Pounds or Talents - Mt 25:14-30 Lk 19:12-27 -

Additional Parables and Images in Matthew’s Gospel (but neither in Mark nor in Luke):
Parable Mark Matthew Luke
Wheat & Tares - Mt 13:24-30 -
[Interpretation of Wheat & Tares] - Mt 13:36-43 - -
Treasure - Mt 13:44 -
Pearl - Mt 13:45-46 -
Net - Mt 13:47-48 -
Unmerciful Servant - Mt 18:23-35 - -
Vineyard Workers & Employer - Mt 20:1-16 - -
Two Sons - Mt 21:28-32 - -
Guest without a Wedding Garment - Mt 22:11-14 -
Ten Virgins - Mt 25:1-13 [cf. Lk 13:25] -
Last Judgement / Sheep & Goats - Mt 25:31-46 - -
Number of New Parables in Matthew - 10 - s

Additional Parables and Images in Luke’s Gospel (but neither in Mark nor in Matthew):
Parable Mark Matthew Luke
Two Debtors - - Lk 7:41-43 -
Good Samaritan - - Lk 10:25-37 -
Friend Asking for Help at Midnight - - Lk 11:5-8 -
Rich Fool - - Lk 12:16-21
Faithful Servants - - Lk 12:35-38 -
Barren Fig-Tree - - Lk 13:6-9 -
Closed Door - - Lk 13:24-30 -
Choice of Places at Table - - Lk 14:7-1l -
Tower-Builder &
King Planning for Battle - - Lk 14:28-32 -
Lost Coin - - Lk 15:8-10 -
Prodigal Son - - Lk 15:11-32 -
Unjust Steward - - Lk 16:1-8 -
Rich Man & Lazarus - - Lk 16:19-31 -
Servant’s Reward - - Lk 17:7-10 -
Unjust Judge - - Lk 18:1-8 -
Pharisee & Publican - - Lk 18:9-14 -
Throne Claimant - - Lk 19:12, 14, 15a, 27 -
Number of New Parables in Luke - - 17

---

 

[juliamajor]

Parable-like Images in the Gospel according to John:
The word “parable” is not used at all in the Fourth Gospel. However, the Johannine Jesus does use some metaphors and images that are somewhat similar to the Synoptic parables:

Shepherd and Sheep (John 10:1-16)
Vine and Branches (John 15:1-8)
18 - - -

Complete List of Parables and Images in the Gospel according to Matthew:
Parable Matthew Mark Luke
Salt Mt 5:13 Mk 9:50 Lk 14:34 -
Lamp on a Stand Mt 5:15 Mk 4:21 Lk 8:16; 11:33
Going before the Judge Mt 5:25-26 - Lk 12:58-59 -
Two Houses Mt 7:24-27 - Lk 6:47-49 -
Garment & Wineskins Mt 9:16-17 Mk 2:21-22 Lk 5:36-39
Children in the Market Place Mt 11:16-19 - Lk 7:31-35 -
Strong Man Mt 12:29 Mk 3:27 Lk 11:21
Return of the Unclean Spirit Mt 12:43-45 - Lk 11:24-26 -
Sower & Seed Mt 13:3-9 Mk 4.3-8 Lk 8:5-8
[Why Jesus Uses Parables] Mt 13:10-17 Mk 4:10-12 Lk 8:9-10
[Interpretation of Sower & Seed] Mt 13:18-23 Mk 4:13-20 Lk 8:11-15 -
Wheat & Tares Mt 13:24-30 [cf. Mk 4:26-29] -
Mustard Seed Mt 13:31-32 Mk 4:30-32 Lk 13:18-
Leaven Mt 13:33 - Lk 13:20-21
[Jesus’ Use of Parables] Mt 13:34-35 Mk 4:33-34 - -
[Interpretation of Wheat & Tares] Mt 13:36-43 - - -
Treasure Mt 13:44 - -
Pearl Mt 13:45-46 - -
Net Mt 13:47-48 - -
Lost Sheep Mt 18:12-13 - Lk 15:3-7
Unmerciful Servant Mt 18:23-35 - - -
Vineyard Workers & Employer Mt 20:1-16 - - -
Two Sons Mt 21:28-32 - - -
Wicked Tenants Mt 21:33-44 Mk 12:1-11 Lk 20:9-18
Great Supper Mt 22:1-10 - Lk 14:16-24
Guest without a Wedding Garment Mt 22:11-14 - -
Budding Fig-Tree Mt 24:32-33 Mk 13:28-29 Lk 21:29-31 -
Burglar Mt 24:43-44 - Lk 12:39-40
Servant Entrusted with Supervision Mt 24:45-51 - Lk 12:42-46 -
Ten Virgins Mt 25:1-13 - [cf. Lk 13:25] -
Pounds or Talents Mt 25:14-30 - Lk 19:12-27 -
Last Judgement / Sheep & Goats Mt 25:31-46 - - -
Total Number in Matthew 28 - - -

Complete List of Parables and Images in the Gospel according to Luke:
Parable Luke Mark Matthew
Garments & Wineskins
Lk 5:36-39 Mk 2:21-22 Mt 9:16-17 GTh 47b
Two Houses, Built on Rock or Earth
Lk 6:47-49 - Mt 7:24-27 -
Children in the Market Place Lk 7:31-35 - Mt 11:16-19 -
Two Debtors Lk 7:41-43 - - -
Sower & Seed Lk 8:5-8 Mk 4.3-8 Mt 13:3-9
[Why Jesus Uses Parables] Lk 8:9-10 Mk 4:10-12 Mt 13:10-17 -
[Interpretation of Sower & Seed] Lk 8:11-15 Mk 4:13-20 Mt 13:18-23 -
Lamp on a Stand Lk 8:16 [cf. 11:33] Mk 4:21 Mt 5:15
[Other Sayings about Jesus’ Parables] Lk 8:17-18 [cf. 12:2] Mk 4:22, 24a, 25 Mt 10:26; 13:12 GTh 5;
Good Samaritan Lk 10:25-37 - - -
Friend Asking for Help at Midnight Lk 11:5-8 - - -
Strong Man Lk 11:21 Mk 3:27 Mt 12:29
Return of the Unclean Spirit Lk 11:24-26 - Mt 12:43-45 -
Lamp on a Stand Lk 11:33 [cf. 8:16] Mk 4:21 Mt 5:15
Rich Fool Lk 12:16-21 - -
Faithful Servants Lk 12:35-38 [cf. Mk 13:33-37] - -
Burglar Lk 12:39-40 - Mt 24:43-44
Servant Entrusted with Supervision Lk 12:42-46 - Mt 24:45-51 -
Going before the Judge Lk 12:58-59 - Mt 5:25-26 -
Barren Fig-Tree Lk 13:6-9 - - -
Mustard Seed Lk 13:18-19 Mk 4:30-32 Mt 13:31-32
Leaven Lk 13:20-21 - Mt 13:33
Closed Door Lk 13:24-30 - [cf. Mt 25:10-12] -
Choice of Places at Table Lk 14:7-1l - - -
Great Supper Lk 14:16-24 - Mt 22:1-10
Tower-Builder &
King Planning for Battle Lk 14:28-32 - - -
Salt Lk 14:34 Mk 9:50 Mt 5:13 -
Lost Sheep Lk 15:3-7 - Mt 18:12-13
Lost Coin Lk 15:8-10 - - -
Prodigal Son Lk 15:11-32 - - -
Unjust Steward Lk 16:1-8 - - -
Rich Man & Lazarus Lk 16:19-31 - - -
Servant’s Reward Lk 17:7-10 - - -
Unjust Judge Lk 18:1-8 - - -
Pharisee & Publican Lk 18:9-14 - - -
Pounds or Talents Lk 19:12-27 - Mt 25:14-30 -
Throne Claimant Lk 19:12, 14, 15a, 27 - - -
Wicked Tenants Lk 20:9-18 Mk 12:1-11 Mt 21:33-44
Budding Fig-Tree Lk 21:29-31 Mk 13:28-29 Mt 24:32-33 -
Total Number in Luke 36 - - -

---

 

[SemperReformada]

Allow me to answer your questions one at a time: .

No problem. Take you time.

 

[inkaneer]

While I disagree with you on the issues you bring up not being found in scripture (ecept for the index of the canon…obviously) you did answer my question, thank you.

I don’t wish to argue but do have a few questions I hope you will answer.

2.) Do you believe all the various Catholic beliefs such as but not limited to the queenship of Mary, the assumption, treasury of merit, etc. are found within the pages of scripture or do you believe there are some Catholic beliefs which are found entirely in Tradition and not scripture?

]

All of the Catholic doctrines are found in scripture. However, that does not mean that they are stated formally in scripture. Bear in mind that the scriptures were intended to be used in liturgical service and not as some sort of self study guide to Christology. Thus the Trinity is found in scripture but the christian understanding of the Trinity is based on the formal definition [using Greek philosophical terms not found in the scriptures] developed in the councils of the early church. So too our understanding of the person of Christ with two natures and two wills is also based on Greek philosophical terminology. That too was the product of early church counciliar decisions.

3.) Your church claims to be infallible and has no doubt defined the limits of scripture via the various councils (Trent for example). As far as I know there is no infallible canon of what is and what isn’t included in Tradition. Do you see that as a handicap in anyway? If not, why not?

There is no infallible canon of Oral Tradition and I don’t see that as a handicap. The absence of a formal canon of Oral Tradition is probably because there has been no need to have one. Remember the canon of scripture was determined beginning with Athanasius in 348 AD but the formal definition of that canon was not made for 1200 years until the council of Trent in 1547 AD. The reason was there was no need to formally define the canon of Written Tradition until Luther tried to eliminate the seven OT deuterocanonical books. The Oral Tradition has not suffered any onslaught. Luther never attacked the Oral Tradition. Mostly he just wrote it off as he denied the teaching authority of the church. That being said it should also be said that Luther did incorporate some of the Oral Tradition into his brand of christianity. For instance, Luther held that Mary was a perpetual virgin and she was conceived sinless. He also held that Mary should be venerated. Calvin did as well.

 

[thomas_jd]

The heaven referred to in both verses is the cosmos, not the presence of God.The gateway to God was opened by Jesus death on the cross.
There is no contradiction.

 

[Danno2281]

]

All of the Catholic doctrines are found in scripture. However, that does not mean that they are stated formally in scripture. Bear in mind that the scriptures were intended to be used in liturgical service and not as some sort of self study guide to Christology. Thus the Trinity is found in scripture but the christian understanding of the Trinity is based on the formal definition [using Greek philosophical terms not found in the scriptures] developed in the councils of the early church. So too our understanding of the person of Christ with two natures and two wills is also based on Greek philosophical terminology. That too was the product of early church counciliar decisions.

There is no infallible canon of Oral Tradition and I don’t see that as a handicap. The absence of a formal canon of Oral Tradition is probably because there has been no need to have one. Remember the canon of scripture was determined beginning with Athanasius in 348 AD but the formal definition of that canon was not made for 1200 years until the council of Trent in 1547 AD. The reason was there was no need to formally define the canon of Written Tradition until Luther tried to eliminate the seven OT deuterocanonical books. The Oral Tradition has not suffered any onslaught. Luther never attacked the Oral Tradition. Mostly he just wrote it off as he denied the teaching authority of the church. That being said it should also be said that Luther did incorporate some of the Oral Tradition into his brand of christianity. For instance, Luther held that Mary was a perpetual virgin and she was conceived sinless. He also held that Mary should be venerated. Calvin did as well.

There is a good website that gives scriptural bases for every Catholic teaching: www.scripturecatholic.com You may find that it answers many of youn questions, and even if you don’t see that these scriptures compel belief, you will at least see that these beliefs can be found in them.