Conscience question re. forum rules forbidding posting any thing "threatening...likely to offend...or otherwise violates any laws"
- Thread starter Saved2Serve
- Start date
Saved2Serve
Member
No. that conclusion simply does follow from the argumentation, in which, as said, veracity rests upon the degree of
Scriptural substantiation and which was not about future events (aside from consequences of a false gospel and teaching).
. While I can some offer some thoughts on what the future may hold (in fulfilling Biblical prophecy), if anything, presuming to be an infallible oracle or a place where one is consulted best applies to Catholicism, within it, under .#s 1-3 below.
Noun: oracle or-u-kul or ó-ru-kul [N. Amer], ó-ru-kul [Brit]
1. An authoritative person who divines the future
- prophet, prophesier, seer, vaticinator
2. A prophecy (usually obscure or allegorical) revealed by a priest or priestess; believed to be infallible
3. A shrine where an oracular god is consulted
4. (blockchains) a trusted source of digital information about that real world that can then be used in a blockchain. - https://www.wordwebonline.com/en/ORACLE
po18guy
Well-known member
It seems thart you demand bible alone. Why? It is not supported or even hinted at in scripture. Jesus founded His Church on ZERO writing. Certainly you cannot deny this biblical fact?
He sent Apostles, telling them "He who hears you hears Me" Luke 10:16.
Q: Why do you oppose Christ, substituting a tradition of European men?
F.Y.I. We here love scripture. Our collective knowledge exceeds all Protestant sources for several reasons. Firstly, we have the complete collection, not the man-handled Luther 'textus interruptus'. We have authoritative interpretation. You do not. The greats of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches have had the scriptures for almost 2,000 years. The Church founded by Christ has written, compiled, vetted, scrutinized and zealously preserved the scriptures at a cost in blood. You accept only that which you agree with. To me, this is a recipe for spiritual disaster, and here you are condescneding to teach us, to "convert us" to "save" us?
I admire your faith and zeal, but the theology you espouse is evil, condemned independently by both Catholic and Orthodox.
Saved2Serve
Member
That is simply and frankly absurd, as if the church began with an itinerant Preacher (rejected by the historical God-ordained magisterium) who provided no substantiation for His claims (aside from miracles and holiness), but ZERO writing! What imaginary Jesus is this? For it is certainly not that of Scripture.
For as said, and will be further substantiated, from the beginning of His ministry to the end it was Scripture that the Lord invoked (while also speaking as wholly God-inspired, in contrast to your leadership in asserting oral tradition), thereby defeating the devil with "it is written" (Mt. 4) to reproving leadership, (Mt. 22) to "beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them [disciples] in all the scriptures the things concerning himself." (Luke 24:27) To which he opened their understanding to. (Lk. 24:44,47)
As did the NT church and its writers (Mat. 1:22; 2:5,15,17,18; 3:3; 4:4,6,7,10,14,15; 5:17,18,33,38,43; 8:4,17; 9:13; 11:10; 12:3,5,17-21,40,41; 13:14,15,35; 14:3,4,7-9;19:4,5,17-19; 21:4,5,13,16,42; 22:24,29,31,32,37,39,43,44; 23:35;24:15; 26:24,31,54,56; 27:9,10,35; Mark 1:2,44; 7:3,10; 9:12,13; 10:4,5; 11:17; 12:10,19,24,26 13:14; 14:21,47,49; 15:28; Lk. 2:22,23.24; 3:4,5,6; 4:4,6-8,10,12,16,17,18,20,25-27; 5:14; 7:27; 8:10; 10:26,27; 16:29,31; 18:20,31; 19:46; 20:17,18, 28,37,42,43; 22:37; 23:30; 24:25.27,32,44,45,46; Jn. 1:45; 2:17,22; 3:14; 5:39,45-47; 6:31,45; 7:19,22,23,38,42,51,52; 8:5,17; 9:26; 10:34,35; 12:14,15,38-41; 15:25; 17:12; 19:24,28,36,37; 20:9,31; 21:24; Acts 1:20; 2:16-21,25-28,34,35; 3:22,23,25; 4:11,25,26; 7:3,7,27,28,32,33,37,40,42,43,49,50,53; 8:28,30,32,33; 10:43;13:15,27,29,33,39; 15:5,15-17,21; 17:2,11; 18:13.24,28; 21:20,24; 22:12; 23:3,5; 24:14; 26:22; 28:23,26,27; Rom 1:2,17; 2:10-21,31; 4:3,7,17,18,23,24; 5:13; 7:1-3,7,12,14,16; 8:4,36; 9:4,9,12,13,15,17,25-29,33; 10:11,15,19; 11:2-4,8,9,26,27; 12:19,20; 13:8-10; 14:11; 15:3,4,9-12,21; 16:16,26,27; 1Cor. 1:19,31; 2:9; 3:19,20; 4:6; 6:16; 7:39; 9:9,10; 10:7,11,26,28; 14:21,34; 15:3,4,32,45,54,55; 2Cor. 1:13; 2:3,4; 3:7,15; 4:13; 6:2;16; 7:12; 8:15; 9:9; 10:17; 13:1; Gal. 3:6,8,10-13; 4:22,27,30; 5:14; Eph. 3:3,4; (cf. 2Pt. 3:16); Eph. 4:8; 5:31; 6:2,3; (cf. Dt. 5:16); Col. 4:16; 1Thes. 5:27; 1Tim. 5:18; 2Tim. 3:14,16,17; Heb. 1:5,7-13; 2:5-8,12,13; 3:7-11,15; 4:3,4,7; 5:5,6; 6:14; 7:17,21,28; 8:5,8-13; 9:20; 10:5-916,17,28,30,37; 11:18; 12:5,6,12,26,29; 13:5,6,22; James 2:8,23; 4:5; 1Pet. 1:16,24,25; 2:6,7,22; 3:10-12; 5:5,12; 2Pet. 1:20,21; 2:22; 3:1,15,16; 1Jn. 1:4; 2:1,7,8,12,13,21; 5:13; Rev. 1:3,11,19; 2:1,8,12,18; 3:1,7,12,14; 14:13; 19:9; 21:5; 22:6,7;10,18,19 )
For as said, Scripture provided the doctrinal and prophetic epistemological foundation for the NT church. For God manifestly made writing His most-reliable means of authoritative preservation. (Exodus 17:14; 34:1,27; Deuteronomy 10:4; 17:18; 27:3,8; 31:24; Joshua 1:8; 2 Chronicles 34:15,18-19, 30-31; Psalm 19:7-11; 119; Isaiah 30:8; Jeremiah 30:2; Matthew 4:5-7; 22:29; Luke 24:44,45; John 5:46,47; John 20:31; Acts 17:2,11; 18:28; Revelation 1:1; 20:12, 15)
And thus as <a href="http://peacebyjesus.net/Bible/2Tim_3.html#Partial (http://peacebyjesus.net/Bible/2Tim_3.html#Partial) "> abundantly evidenced </a>, as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God. Thus the veracity of even apostolic oral preaching could be subject to testing by Scripture, (Acts 17:11)
Since you have no wholly God-inspired speakers and and ensured perpetual magisterial veracity is no more Biblical for them than it was for those whose judgments were binding as sitting in the seat of Moses, then you must look to the the only wholly God-inspired, substantive, authoritative record of what the NT church believed - which is Scripture, esp. Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels. In which distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest, thus your recourse to amorphous oral tradition.
Saved2Serve
Member
1. Luther's translation and inclusion of deuterocanonical in his translation, but separately as not being Scripture proper in his expressly private opinio, and the addition of 7 books (if not quite as many a Orthodox) not part of the most ancient canon corespondent to that of Protestantism (if not Luther) is an extensive issue not befitting this thread, and would be of little help to you.
2. Your recourse of asserting "we have an authoritative interpretation" is simply presumptuous, as already explained, and repeating it will not validate it no matter how many times it is asserted.
3. As said and substantiated, the Catholic and Orthodox Churches and have substantial disagreements and remain separated after 1,000 years.
4. The claim that your church wrote the Scriptures is simply untenable, since as said, distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest in the only wholly God-inspired, substantive, authoritative record of what the NT church believed, that being is Scripture (especially Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels) even though it would not have been hard to include even just a few words that did so.
5. Your appeal to historical stewardship (ignoring the blood unscripturally shed) does not translate into ensured veracity any more - and less - than it did for those who sat in the authoritative seat of Moses.
You accept only that which you agree with. To me, this is a recipe for spiritual disaster, and here you are condescneding to teach me , to "convert me" to "save" me?
Saved2Serve
Member
No, as has been made evident in a post 2 days ago (Scripture warns believers against believing a false gospel based on merit via the Law, making Christ of no effect, to no profit, and of departing from the living God, thereby forfeiting what faith obtained. .(Gal. 5:1-4; Heb. 3:6; 10:25-34") and my signature. Calvinists believe in final perseverance of the saints, the "P" in the TULIP acronym, versus being able to "terminally fall away."
Eternal security has some strong support, (John 6:39; 10: John 10:27-29; Romans 8:28-30) yet there are clear warnings written to Christians, as Christians warning them of forfeiting what faith obtained by effectually denying the faith.
po18guy
Well-known member
You still have not answered why your personal, unguided opinion of Holy Writ is at extreme variance with numerous other well-intentioned men. How can this be? Who is correct? All of them? Maybe the last fellow here was correct or maybe the next fellow will be. I'm flabbergasted, as no bible believer may EVER know if he is well and truly rightly dividing God's message. By this standard, Christianity is false and Jesus of Nazareth is a false messiah.
Is that what you mean to say?
Remember: the biblical test for truth is that testimony agrees. Protestant testimony never agrees.
Therefore your counsel must be viewed with great circumspection or completely disregarded.
Is that what you mean to say?
Remember: the biblical test for truth is that testimony agrees. Protestant testimony never agrees.
Therefore your counsel must be viewed with great circumspection or completely disregarded.
Last edited:
Saved2Serve
Member
You mean that substantial disagreements btwn the Orthodox and RCs, and the latter among themselves, are not a reality since you have an infallible magisterium. That fractured state is the reality, despite (at least paper professions) affirmation of key beliefs? And Rome has authoritatively defined very, very little of the Bible, which typical Catholics attest to studying little of.
Meanwhile, despite some significant disagreements (due to being doctrine intensive), those who strongly esteemed the Bible as being the sure, supreme, accurate and authoritative word of God (classic "evangelicals") have long attested to being the most conservative unified large religious group (far more than Catholics, esp. as Rome counts as members) in polled basic values and fundamental beliefs, which includes the basic gospel of grace.
In addition, Rome manifestly treats even proabortion, prohomosexual public figures as members in life and in death, thereby showing the Vatican's understanding of canon law - meaning Ted Kennedy Catholics are your brethren (latae sentenciae notwithstanding, just who is excommunicated is determined by official prelates).
As a former weekly and holy day mass-going Catholic, and CCD teacher and lector, I can attest I found far more actually essential unity of the Spirit (Ephesians 4:3) and salvific Truth among evangelicals overall (as well as opnions due to taking beliefs serioulsy) than among Catholics. And we abound in classic commentaries, with greater unity than scholarly variance, versus being without guidance.
Meanwhile, for decades your own notes in the NAB and Catholic commentary taught such things as that numerous historical accounts in the Bible to being fables or folk tales, such a s the advanced ages of the patriarchs, the Flood of Noah, Balaam's talking donkey, Jonah and the Fish, Joshua's long day etc. were not literal. No thanks.
And rather than the RC magisterium (that you would have me look to) solving the problem of division,
the reality is as one poster once wryly stated,
The last time the church imposed its judgment in an authoritative manner on "areas of legitimate disagreement," the conservative Catholics became the Sedevacantists and the Society of St. Pius X, the moderate Catholics became the conservatives, the liberal Catholics became the moderates, and the folks who were excommunicated, silenced, refused Catholic burial, etc. became the liberals. The event that brought this shift was Vatican II; conservatives then couldn't handle having to actually obey the church on matters they were uncomfortable with, so they left. ” (Nathan, https://christopherblosser.wordpres...orsi-on-different-levels-of-catholic-teaching)
Thus you have articles such as this from Crux: Is Catholicism about to break into three?
Meanwhile, it is you who have not responded to the reality that, contrary to your premise that understanding Holy Writ requires your self-proclaimed infallible magisterium, this is not how the NT church began!. For your question essentially is, "how could common people - who discerned John the baptizer was "a prophet indeed," as with Jesus, thus they "heard him gladly," (Mk. 12:37) and searched the Scriptures in order to ascertain the veracity of apostles (Acts 7:11) - discern that both writings and men were of God without an infallible magisterium?"
Indeed, how could they believe on an itinerant (in the eyes of leadership) Prophet contrary to the judgment of the historical magisterium?
In effect, it is by your standard that Christianity would wrongly be rejected as false and Jesus of Nazareth is a false messiah.
Last edited:
Saved2Serve
Member
The recourse to a form of ad hominem in lieu of a valid argument is an argument against being a Catholic, while the charge of refusing to obey Christ - and of not being a Christian - due to my challenging Catholics on home turf is simply begging the question, presuming what begs to be proven. Which is a typical response by proponents of Catholicism, as I can attest after thousands of posts on one well-moderated forum alone over the course of 14 years (and still do) by the grace of God.
And my persistence on this thread is due to a lone Catholic who persists in arguments by assertion.
The OP should realize, in that they spent many years as a practicing Catholic, that an endless barrage of prolix Gish-gallops is not going to wear down faithful Catholics, make them cry "uncle", and turn them into sola scriptura evangelicals.
I'm making no response to these posts, and I really don't recommend that anyone else does so either, but if you want to, that's up to you. This is a Catholic forum. Protestant arguments (such as sola scriptura) will be dealt with accordingly.
I'm making no response to these posts, and I really don't recommend that anyone else does so either, but if you want to, that's up to you. This is a Catholic forum. Protestant arguments (such as sola scriptura) will be dealt with accordingly.
Saved2Serve
Member
As a Catholic forum, then it should welcome or at least allow challenges to the faith, even if it is solely by a once faithful Catholic. Who, contrary to a "rapid series of specious arguments, half-truths, misrepresentations and outright lies" the format of the debate makes impossible to refute - as liberal Wikipedia defines Gish-gallop - has engaged in substantiated reasoned, logical arguments in response to what are mainly assertions by a singular Catholic, whose recourse has once again been that of ad hominem.
Your arguments are not willful "half-truths, misrepresentations, [or] outright lies" in your eyes, as you seem to be persuaded they are true, and I for one do not doubt your sincerity or bona fides, nevertheless, they run counter to Catholic teaching on many, many levels. As you surely know, Catholics, unlike many if not most Protestants, don't start by saying "there was this Man called Jesus, and there's this book called the Bible, let's turn to the Bible and see what it says about this Man and His message". Scripture is basically a form of tradition, a written one, and at least as far as the New Testament is concerned, the Church was the body, with authority from Christ Himself, that determined which of the many books of the time were divinely inspired, and which ones weren't. Likewise, she is the body which interprets these books.
You are quite right to call into question modern biblical scholarship and its overall attempt to demythologize Scripture. Traditional concordances such as Haydock do not fall into this trap.
Saved2Serve
Member
"they run counter to Catholic teaching on many, many levels," Yes, there is no need to state the obvious, but the issue is that of censuring challenges to it such as I have made.
In which I have dealt with the typical retort that the NT church "was not founded upon the Bible" (seeing as it did not exist as complete) but that instead it began upon oral tradition, with the church authoritatively determining what was of God and the meaning of the same, (under the premise of ensured perpetual magisterial veracity), by pointing out that:
An authoritative body of wholly God-inspired writings had been manifestly established by the time of Christ as being “Scripture, (”in all the Scriptures”) “even the tripartite canon of the Law, the Prophets and The Writings, by which the Lord Jesus established His messiahship and ministry and opened the minds of the disciples to, who did the same . (Luke 24:27.44,45; Acts 17:2, 11; Acts 18:28; Acts 28:23; Romans 1:2; Romans 16:26, etc.) All without an infallible magisterium.
And thus it is indisputable that Scripture preceded the church, and which provided the doctrinal and prophetic epistemological foundation for it.
For God manifestly made writing His most-reliable means of authoritative preservation. (Exodus 17:14; 34:1,27; Deuteronomy 10:4 17:18; 27:3,8; 31:24; Joshua 1:8; 2 Chronicles 34:15, 18-19, 30-31; Psalm 19:7-11; 119; Isaiah 30:8; Jeremiah 30:2; Matthew 4:5-7; 22:29; Luke 24:44, 45; John 5:46, 47; John 20:31; Acts 17:2, 11; 18:28; Revelation 1:1; 20:12, 15
Thus the veracity of even apostolic oral preaching could be subject to testing by Scripture. (Acts 17:11) a.
Moreover, men such as the apostles could speak as wholly inspired of God and also provide new public revelation thereby (in conflation with what had been written), neither of popes and councils claim to do. Thus the written word is the assured infallible word of God.
Therefore, lacking any apostles who speak and write as wholly inspired of God, only declaring herself to be conditionally infallible ("infallibility merely implies exemption from liability to error. God is not the author of a merely infallible, as He is of an inspired, utterance; the former remains a merely human document." -http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm), then your recourse must be to the only wholly God-inspired record of what the NT church was to believe.
Meanwhile, it was not until after the death of Luther in 1546 that Rome provided its first “infallible” indisputable and final definition of the Roman Catholic canon, confirmatory of the majority affirmation as seen in some prior councils.
The Canon of the New Testament, like that of the Old, is the result of a development, of a process at once stimulated by disputes with doubters, both within and without the Church, and retarded by certain obscurities and natural hesitations, and which did not reach its final term until the dogmatic definition of the Tridentine Council. (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm)
"That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent." (New Catholic Encyclopedia, Catholic University of America , 2003, Vol. 3, pp. 20,26.
In the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages [5th century to the 15th century] we find evidence of hesitation about the character of the deuterocanonicals. There is a current friendly to them, another one distinctly unfavourable to their authority and sacredness, while wavering between the two are a number of writers whose veneration for these books is tempered by some perplexity as to their exact standing, and among those we note St. Thomas Aquinas. Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity... (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm)
And SS actually affirms that the magisterial office of church is essential to settle disputes, in subjection of Scripture and principals thereof, but not as superior to it.
Thanks and yes, however, his notes are not what are found in the official Bible for America, which require notes, and basically, "the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors." - Vehementer Nos, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906.
There are many more statements as this, and required assent includes to Encyclical Letters. Having seen the disputations of Traditional Catholics. how much room required submission leaves for the laity to disagree is a matter of debate among Catholics.
Thanks for chiming in here.
po18guy
Well-known member
"Clear that scripture predeced the Church"?
Absolute nonsense.
Mods, feel free to show this man the door. He is detached from reality.
po18guy
Well-known member
Regarding the incoherence of replies, can it be ChatGPT responses? From Wiki: "ChatGPT is a language model-based chatbot developed by OpenAI and launched on November 30, 2022. It can generate human-like conversational responses and enables users to refine and steer a conversation towards a desired length, format, style, level of detail, and language.
The Old Testament is Scripture, and it preceded the Church. The Church did precede the New Testament.
Dxx
Saved2Serve
Member
Rather, it is the denial that scripture preceded the Church that is detachment from reality, as has been made quite evident, leaving this latest retort to be another bare assertion that is expect to be accepted regardless of the irrefutable evidence against it.
And yet many Catholics do seem to be ignorant of the fact that most of the Bible was already established by the time of Christ. Thus as already show, "And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself." (Luke 24:27)
Or do I need to post all of the Hebrew Scriptures?
Saved2Serve
Member
Thank you for affirming reality.