Book Review: The Bible is a Catholic Book

[ArchStanton]

Sorry for the interruption but curiosity got the best of me…I was wondering if ‘church authority’ or the Eucharist were the main reasons for you leaving the Catholic Church.

Blessings!

 

[De_Maria]

Accusing me of nonsense

We are simply denying what you are teaching. We consider it false teaching. Did you want us to capitulate and accept everything you say.

like accusations I am not saying, like “You want to be our pope?”

Why do you keep repeating the same arguments we’ve already rejected?

When you ask me direct questions, and I give them, even if you don’t agree, you don’t need to respond with condescending, immature comments like this that I would expect from a teenager.

When we don’t agree and give you the reasons we don’t agree, you don’t need to keep repeating the same things like a child.

You can disagree & respond with maturity without engaging in ad hominems.

We do. But you come back with your same claims, over and over.

Since it violates forum rules of conduct, and non-Catholics are bound by them & not allowed to engage in that kind of disrespectful behavior, I would hope devout faithful Catholics would have the desire to be just as compliant on their own forum.

We are. And I would hope that as a non-Catholic on a Catholic forum, you would realize that your arguments go against Catholic Teaching. And when we disagree with your arguments, you should learn to agree to disagree. And not to insist on your arguments as though your trying to shove them down our throats.

If your faith is as strong as you profess, then you would have no need to make childish comments like this, but instead simply answer the questions & respond to the comments with nothing but factual responses, not insults.

If your faith is as strong as you profess, you would have no need to push your agenda when it has been debunked.

Except not all councils agreed on the same books.

1. Yes, they do. You simply don’t understand the changes in nomenclature.
2. Even if they didn’t, the infallible Councils do and they agree with the official Catholic Bible, the Latin Vulgate.

Even the fourth & fifth century church councils did not agreed with each other…

I already told you that they do. You simply don’t understand the changes in the names and order of the books. Now, are you going to insist on your position?

By saying “most-likely” I was referring to the uncertainty of the date of the Didache,

So, it’s not an objective fact. It’s your opinion. But you won’t admit it because you are pushing an agenda.

cont’d

 

[De_Maria]

cont’d

I didn’t “sneak them in there.”

Yeah, you did. You said “Apostolic authorship” was one of the criteria. But they aren’t Apostles.

Apostolic authorship is a term to describe not only the apostles, but also their close contemporaries. Even Catholics use this term to include them. You might want to brush up on your apologetics.

I think I’m doing just fine. You need to brush up on your ever changing definitions.

[cont]

And you’re kind of just forgetting that the Apostle Paul is a member of the Church which Jesus Christ established and gave authority to bind and loose and Teach His commands.

Yes, he was a member of the church. But that truth has no bearing of the quote you posted I mentioned, which had to do with first century & apostolic authorship, which is why second century works, like the epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, and most-likely the Didache are not inspired Scripture because they were written too late.

If this is true, then what is stopping an alleged “miracle-performing Catholic saint” today from saying God revealed to him or her that another inspired writing is God-breathed Scripture, since that is one criteria even Catholics have also used to validate inspired NT writings?

Lol! Really? Because, if anyone, Catholic or otherwise, were to claim that God had revealed another God-breathed Scripture, he would be deemed a false prophet, since God has revealed that all revelation has ended.

If this is true, then why does it contain books in the OT that contain errors & contradictions

There are no errors in the OT. Anytime you want to go over any Scriptures, OT or otherwise, we are ready, willing and able to show you that you are in error.

Once again, a baseless assumption …

On the contrary, it is a cold, hard, fact.

… Good bye! Grace to you.

And to you.

 

[De_Maria]

Again, He breathed Scripture, which the five solas are based on.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) goout:

No they’re not. If you claim they are, let’s start with this, show the verse which says “sola Scriptura”. Or the verses which you claim teach “sola Scriptura”. Make sure that they are explicit.

 

[Prodigal1984]

We are. And I would hope that as a non-Catholic on a Catholic forum, you would realize that your arguments go against Catholic Teaching. And when we disagree with your arguments, you should learn to agree to disagree. And not to insist on your arguments as though your trying to shove them down our throats.

That’s what I’m saying.
I fell away from the Catholic Church for a decade and used to make the same stupid arguments he does. It is really Protestant 101.
The problem is they talk as if the Bible dropped out of the sky.
And he speaks about if there were other books in the Bible it would mean it was a false prophet?
No. We would just have grown up believing that was also a book of the Bible. If the Shepherd of Hermas or the the Epistle of Barnabas were in the Bible we would just accept it because the Church said so. There would be no errors because we wouldn’t look for them. You could hypothetically find an error in any book if you really want to with a wrong interpretation. Also, the Epistle of Barnabas may have been written in the 80s. 1 Clement may have been the 70s. The Didache may have been as early as 50. And the Shepherd of Hermas may have been the 90s. It is interesting how for canonical books he uses the earliest date possible given by scholars, yet these other disputed and ultimately not included books he gives the latest dates like it is set in stone and he was the scribe who wrote it. I’m not saying these books are Canon, I’m just saying the only reason he knows what the Bible is is because of the Churches discernment.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

I fell away from the Catholic Church for a decade and used to make the same stupid arguments he does. It is really Protestant 101

Same here. Did the same thing and yeah his arguments were everything I was taught also.

 

[adf417]

Prodigal1984:

I fell away from the Catholic Church for a decade and used to make the same stupid arguments he does. It is really Protestant 101

Same here. Did the same thing and yeah his arguments were everything I was taught also.

Indeed and it is the same arguments and tactics the JWs use also.

 

[Gorgias]

“ baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19) - baptism (ie: immersion, not merely ritual prayer)

Again: this is a liturgical prescription. It doesn’t address the question of “immersion”. If you have a verse, show it. Otherwise, please just admit that you don’t have a leg to stand on (other than your own traditions of men).

It is taught & warned from the very beginning of the Bible, all the way through it, to the very end:

Your quotes are not demonstrating ‘Scripture’, as such. Rather, they’re talking about the Mosaic Law. In fact, since you claim that they’re talking about Scripture, you’re defeating your own argument: these OT references command us to “not add to the word”… but Christians added the entirety of the NT! So, if that’s what you base your argument on, then you better burn your NT and just stick with the OT!

Your quote from 1 Cor 4 doesn’t help you, either, since “what is written” at that point is only the OT (and, perhaps, Paul’s own letters). Revelation, either, since the ‘book’ there is Revelation itself (and not others).

So… nothing there says “The Bible is the rule of faith”. Got anything that does, then?

Never claimed that. You are putting words in my mouth. I never said “me.”

“ya’ll”, then.

Nice theory. The problem is that history of the Reformation era doesn’t support any of it.

Actually, it does. Please show me the “imputation of righteousness” doctrine anywhere, prior to Luther.

or by denying the Church that Christ founded upon the apostles

Which the Reformers did do, since they walked away from that Church.

 

[goout]

But you must be the only one not seeing that you have not answered direct questions.

You reject the Church because it’s not biblical and based on traditions. And out of the other side of your mouth you cite faith traditions that are absolutely formulated by the minds of “men”, while claiming they are based in scripture while the Church’s Tradition is not.

You are wandering in circular logic. And you are using that circular logic to exalt the traditions that you hold to as divinely connected to scripture.
But Catholics can’t do that?

Your argument is a mess. You can do better. Here’s an argument with integrity:
Drop your insistence that you have the scriptures as the sole basis of your faith tenets, and simply arrogate your beliefs to your own authority, and to the authority of those “men” you subscribe to.
That would be an honest argument.

 

[Xarto]

Looks interesting but why can’t they make electronic versions, epub, mobi etc.

I hardly ever read physical books apart from the Bible and College text books.

 

[Prodigal1984]

Looks interesting but why can’t they make electronic versions, epub, mobi etc.

What do you mean? I bought it on Kindle.