Can a Catholic refute these?

[JRKH]

I’ll take a deeper look later but for now let’s just say that the page offers a lot of questions with little detail to back them up…
Also - the author of the page has a very different outlook on the bible etc than does the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church. It stems from things that have developed since the PR and this taints his ability to understand any answers that one might supply.

More later (maybe)

Peace
James

 

[pablope]

It is said here that Catholic can’t refute this.
bible.ca/catholic-questions.htm

More:

Provide a single example of a doctrine that originates from an oral Apostolic Tradition that the Bible is silent about? Provide proof that this doctrinal tradition is apostolic in origin.

The declaration that public revelation about Christ has ended with the death of the last Apostle, John.

Or the Canon of the Bible. Or that the Bible is the Word of God alone.

Provide a single example of where inspired apostolic “oral revelation” (tradition) differed from “written” (scripture)?

None. The difference is in the interpretations that deviate from the faith the put together the Bible.

The Church, both east and west, put the Bible together…to reflect their teachings and the faith handed down by the Apostles.

If you are not permitted to engage in private interpretation of the Bible, how do you know which “apostolic tradition” is correct between the Roman Catholic, the Orthodox and the Watchtower churches, for all three teach the organization alone can interpret scripture correctly, to the exclusion of individual?

Apostolic Succession…and the Bible itself gives directions:

from Luke…Luke 10:16 (Douay Rheims)

16 He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me.

Romans 10:
14 How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15 And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!”[g]

Then from 1John 4… Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world……………6 We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit[a] of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

 

[anrmenchaca47]

Man these are awesome answer!!!…why doesnt anyone send it to the guy who wrote these so called “cant refute” questions?..his email link is at the bottom of the web page.

 

[JRKH]

If the Roman Catholic church gave the world the Bible, being infallible, then why did Rome reject or question the inspiration of James and Hebrews , then later accept it? Conversely, Rome accepted as scripture books that were later rejected.
If the Catholic church really is illuminated by the Holy Spirit so that men can trust her as “God’s organization”, why was she so wrong about something so simple? Should not the “Holy See” have known?
If the Orthodox church gave the world the Bible, being infallible, then why did the eastern churches reject or question the inspiration of Revelation, then later accept it? Conversely, the east accepted as scripture books that were later rejected.
If the Orthodox church really is illuminated by the Holy Spirit so that men can trust her as “God’s organization”, why was she so wrong about something so simple?
If the Roman Catholic church gave the world the Bible in 397 AD, then why did many different versions of canons continue to circulate long afterwards?
If the Roman Catholic church gave us the Bible, why were the two synods of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage, (397 AD) African councils, and not initiatives of Rome?
Since the synod Carthage in 393 AD stated, “But let Church beyond sea (Rome) be consulted about confirming this canon”, does this not prove that Rome had no direct (name removed by moderator)ut or initiative in determining the canon

Mostly all these questions show is that this person really does not have a clue on why the canon was developed in the first place.
The Bible was collected, over time, for the purpose of providing a consistent set of texts for use in the liturgy worldwide.
there really isn’t anything above that is “irrefutable” - in fact most of it doesn’t NEED to be refuted…

The conversation in this regard really needs to be more basic…the hows and the whys of the development of the bible canon.

Since the two synods of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage, (397 AD) were under the control of what would later become the “orthodox church”, how can the Roman Catholic church claim they determined the Canon? Would not such a claim be more naturally due the Eastern Orthodox church?
Both Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox church leaders make the identical claim that they gave the world the Bible. If both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches make the same claim they gave the world the Bible, why do they have different books in each of their Bibles? Whose “church authority” shall we believe? Whose tradition is the one we should follow?

This one is actually kind of laughable. At the time there was ONE Christian Church. That Church established the canon of the Bible at 73 books - although the Eastern Churches continued to use more than the 73.
Note that there was no Schism over this fact and one begins to see how the One Holy and Universal Church saw the canon at the time.
Perhaps the better question for our friend would be - Why do you use 66 books? What council approved that Canon?

If the Catholic church, “by her own inherent God given power and authority” gave the world the Bible, why did she not get it right the first time? Why did the Roman Catholic church wait until 1546 AD in the Council of Trent, to officially add the Apocrypha to the Canon?

Let this person produce an approved and complete Catholic (or Orthodox) bible from before 1546 that does not have the Deuterocanonicals in it. :nope:

If you are not permitted to engage in private interpretation of the Bible, how do you know which “apostolic tradition” is correct between the Roman Catholic, the Orthodox and the Watchtower churches, for all three teach the organization alone can interpret scripture correctly, to the exclusion of individual?

An easy one. Look at history and look at doctrines…Watchtower is out because it is too new…Jesus promised no break - Apostolic succession provides for that. That leaves us with two…Catholic and Orthodox - and doctrinally there really isn’t that much difference. So I don’t see a problem.

If the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches both believes that the scripture: “the church is the pillar and foundation of truth” means the church is protected from error then: a. Why do they teach doctrine so different that they are not even in communion with each other? b. How do you account for the vast number of documented theological errors made by the pope and the church in general

Point: a) The Catholic and Orthodox are simply not that far apart doctrinally. The two Churches are in communication even now seeking closer ties and eventual reunification.
Point b): Each can be accounted for…let each be brought forward and addressed on it’s own merits.

I could go one…but I think you get the point…These things each have answers…but more often - they are not even the right questions…

Peace
James

 

[andrewstx]

It is said here that Catholic can’t refute this.
bible.ca/catholic-questions.htm

I would take anything bible.ca said with a huge block of salt. They are ‘church of Christ’ Campbellites. A sect I was in before my conversion. They think they are the only Christians in the world, and just a few CofC people at that. They worship the bible as a paper and ink idol. They were invented in 1906 so there were no Christians before that date.

They hate all other churches beside their own. Nearly everything on that site is misunderstanding, or straight out lies.

If you keep digging through that immense site, you will find they have very unkind things to say about atheists and agnostics as well.

Everything on that site is at a sophomoric level. They dislike education and do not have even one theological seminary, only ‘bible schools’ and ‘preaching schools’. Those institutions teach only a simple bible literalism and that the church of Christ is correct and everyone else is wrong.

 

[Jack007]

Why do Roman Catholics always use 2 Timothy 2:2; 3:14 as Bible proof that extra-biblical oral tradition is to be followed through apostolic succession, when tradition says Timothy became the bishop of Ephesians, which through succession, is now part of the Greek Orthodox church headed out of Constantinople? If 2 Timothy 2:2 proves succession, doesn’t this prove the Roman Catholic church is not part of that succession?

:nope: it is laughable, it has been answered

 

[Jack007]

replies of pablope and JRKH are good.anrmenchaca47, could you do it yourself,lol

 

[Angel_Bradford]

phew, that was tiring. but this must be enough to convince you that the catholic church is right. if you want more answers, let me know.

Great job!!!:clapping:

 

[Jack007]

Great job!!!:clapping:

thank you

 

[mackbrislawn]

Protestants inherited the bible from the Roman Church. The Roman Church evangelized western Europe so the only reason western Europe believed in God and the bible at the time of the Reformation was because of the Roman Catholic Church. The Reformers had been Catholic, and so believed in God and the bible only because these were teachings of the Roman Church.

Without the Roman Catholic Church, western Europe would have been pagan, or more likely, Muslim!

And then they have the affrontery, the cheek, to doubt and to bite the hand that gave them the bible to begin with.

Hmm…if “Rome” can be wrong, maybe we have the wrong bible after all. What proof do we have that Mark wrote Mark, Matthew wrote Matthew, and so on? Why, no proof at all. If you want proof, there is none.

 

[BobCatholic]

Man these are awesome answer!!!…why doesnt anyone send it to the guy who wrote these so called “cant refute” questions?..his email link is at the bottom of the web page.

Their hatred of the Catholic Church makes them not likely to listen to facts. Emotions trump conscience.

 

[andrewstx]

Their hatred of the Catholic Church makes them not likely to listen to facts. Emotions trump conscience.

I have absolutely NO interest in communicating with these people, nor do they have any interest in reasonable debate.

As I said before, I converted from that sect. My parents were members of it. When I Ieft it, I was told that “you have left Christ and his church”. And I was disowned and disinherited.

This sect though does like to argue. Years ago they would hold debates with Catholic clergy. But… they would set the terms for the debate and then wonder of wonders they would loudly proclaim that they had “won” the debate.

Remember, these people truly believe that they are the world’s only Christians, and that to argue with them is to be ageing with God. Campbellites believe that the bible literally is God, and if you disagree with them, you disagree with God himself.