Do Catholics ignore these scriptures?

[Rightlydivide]

However, I do not know WHY rightlydivide is singling out Catholics with this question, for I am a former Protestant
(by denomination Presbyterian, Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+

I have posed the questions on other forums as well. But I admit I have never frequented a Presbyterian forum…if such exists.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Your name on here indicates that you are proud that you are remaining divided from the original Christian Churches:

 

[Joab_Anias]

No, it is a common term in the circles I run.

Sounds like a tradition of division.

Most CHRISTIANS do not know the history I would say. I do though.

To be steeped in History is to cease to protest.

 

[Joab_Anias]

What a nice and polite attempt to convert me, I will say that.

Are you expecting to be converted?

Of course I wll continue to believe the Bible.

Its our pleasure for you to do so. Thats why we protected it through the ages. Its a start and even in with a wrong interpretation one is better off with that than without any.

The earliest extant list of the books of the NT, in exactly the number and order in which we presently have them, is written by Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, in his Festal letter # 39 of 367 A.D.

The Catholic Church chose which books to include in the Bible in the Synod’s of Hippo (393 AD) and confirmed it at Carthage (397 AD).

Here are the words of Professor Peter Flint, the non-Catholic scholar who translated the only English version of the Dead Sea Scrolls which won first prize from the Washington Biblical Archeology association:

“Without the Catholic Church you have no Bible, just a bunch of books and letters. With the Church you have the Bible!”

 

[Metaron]

How does the papal tierra, mitre and so forth not violate what Paul is teaching

Do Catholicwomen pray with their head uncovered

Do Catholic men have long hair?

Do Catholic women cut their hair

Well, as far as the “covering” goes, I think it’s a reference to the hair, i.e., a woman’s covering is her hair, and a man isn’t supposed to have really long hair because it would be a covering to him. I don’t think it violates that hair rule by wearing a mitre or a zuccetto (sic).

 

[Metaron]

…but you seem like a nice lady and I cannot argue too much with a lady.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Rightlydivide;3003682:

Ah, chivalrious as well as estudious…"

I am the nicest person I know…have a good day.

 

[Giovanni]

Well, simplistic me, while we are at it with ignored scriptures, how many blind and one or no hands people in this forum. Should be all of us. I am sure I am not the first or last to remind ourselves that we have to read and understand the whole Bible, and not thake parts of it to attack others.

Peace and Love

 

[Joab_Anias]

Well, simplistic me, while we are at it with ignored scriptures, how many blind and one or no hands people in this forum. Should be all of us. I am sure I am not the first or last to remind ourselves that we have to read and understand the whole Bible, and not thake parts of it to attack others.

Peace and Love

I sort of agree with you. But since were asking questions, here are some sola scriptura folks can’t answer.

If salvation is “solely by grace,” why are not all people saved since “the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men” (Titus 2:11)?

Jn. 10:30 teaches that Jesus and the Father are one. But does this mean one person or a unity between persons?

Does 1 Cor. 3:8 then mean that Paul and Apollos were one person?

Does Eph. 5:31 mean that a husband and wife are one person? See also Gen. 11:6 and Jn. 17:21 for examples.

Jn. 17:21 indicates that the “oneness” of the disciples was to be just like that between Jesus and the Father.

Since Acts 2:38 teaches that the baptism commanded is “for the remission of sins,” is there any reason to believe that any other cases of water baptism were practiced for any other reason (e.g., Acts 10:48, 19:5)? [If so, where are the scriptures that indicate it?]

Since Acts 8:36-38 teaches that baptism is by immersion (i.e., “down into water” … “up out of the water”), is there any reason to believe that any other cases of water baptism were practiced in a different way (e.g., Acts 2:41, 10:48, 16:15,33)?

Since Acts 2:4-11 teaches that when men spoke in tongues (i.e., “as the Spirit gave the utterance”), they spoke actual, understandable human languages, why believe that any other cases of tongue speaking were in languages which could not be understood (e.g., Acts 10:46, 19:6, 1 Cor. 12-14)?

Since all examples of miracles in the NT were definitive and clearly visible signs, wonders and powers [review them all to verify this], why apply the word miracle (in the biblical sense) to things that clearly do not fit that description today?

God acts in the affairs of men today, but if these actions qualified as NT miracles, they would be impossible to deny (Jn. 11:47-53, Acts 4:13-22).

Since the miracles in the NT were for the purpose of confirming the newly-revealed word (Mk. 16:20), what new revelation (i.e., not in the New Testament) is being confirmed by miracles today?

If we cannot understand the bible alike, how are we to understand the confusion being generated by everyone claiming to speak under the influence of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 14:33)?

If someone receives the Holy Spirit when they are saved or at baptism, why did the Samaritans, who were saved, in Acts 8 not yet have the Holy Spirit?

Someone claiming to speak in tongues and heal, should also be able to drink deadly poison, be unaffected by the bites of poisonous snakes, and heal with 100% success.

1 Cor 13:8-13: Whether Paul intended it or not, one cannot walk away from this illustration, without thinking that God was telling the Corinthians that the spiritual gifts belonged to a “childhood” stage in the church. Hence, spiritual gifts are not a sign of “spiritual elitism”, rather they infer that something is missing or not yet complete.

Why do people look over their soldier for the catcher, just before they are slain in the Spirit?

If tongues is so centrally important, why is the gift of tongues not again mentioned after Acts 19:6 and the book of first Corinthians?

Why are healing revivals FULL of genuinely and undisputedly crippled wheelchair-ridden people who NEVER GET HEALED???

 

[Vintagecoils]

I am not in a denomination.
I go to a church that was started by a former atheist. We follow the Bible as best as we can. I do not speak in tongues and I do not accept Joseph Smith as a Prophet. John sealed the Bible, God knew that would be the last book and where it would be and inspired his words. There can be no new scriptures written after Revelation.

I worship with the faithful of the Church started by Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, passed down to the Apostles.

Christ never taught to follow a book. He gave the authority to the Apostles to teach. They did and ordained new bishops and clergy. They instructed orally as Christ did until they were inspiried by the Holy Spirit to write it down. Some 50 to 60 years after the Church was in existence.

2Ti2:15 refers to Old testament and the oral teachings of the Churches. NO BIBLE YET.

You say you go to a church started by a ex atheist. You were more concerned in your original post as to whether a Catholic wore a covering and not whether they believed on Christ.

I wear the covering and don’t wear pants. I don’t cut my hair but that won’t save me. The Catholic and Orthodox Church does not discount the covering and it remains in scripture and is use dby many of the faithful.

Now where is your church? If I can not know then that contridicts Christ. For he has said the his Church shall prevail.

If your church is only for a few and hovering on a few points in order to exclude rather than to bring people to Christ you actually border on cult.
The bible also says that many things were done and said by Christ JOHN 21:25. "And there are also many othe things which Jesus did the which, if they should be written everyone, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. The apostles brought out the essentials of the faith so that people can distinquish the true teachings. However, to say that anything their disciples taught or wrote can not be seen as truth is foolish.

Cutting out that which was also done by them as tradition goes against what Paul has taught. 2TH2:15. " therefore bretheren, stand fast, and hold the traditions ye have been taught, whether by word or our epistle.

Rejecting the fullness of the Church robs you of the fullness of Christ he promised you. Saying you try to follow the bible the best you can is tragic. If that is all Christ wanted he would have sent down tablets and not even bother to gather Apostles and teach and heal and establish a way. Do as I have done he says. Yet you want to judge based on a very unclear painting that his hair was short or pulled back or bunned as tradition has also shown. Which is it.?

We are not to follow the vain deceits of the traditons of man after the rudiments of the world that are not after Christ. Col2:8.

So it is specific of the traditions we are to be leary of. A Church based on externals is in danger of doing just that. Especially if it strives to exclude and judge based on those externals.
Lord have mercy on me, a sinner

 

[AllSaints1631]

When he says things like “it seems to me,” or “it seems perfectly obvious that” when in fact it’s not something that’s “perfectly obvious.”

In his defense, I read in another thread where someone declined the premise of Mary being taken into Heaven body and soul as was Enoch because Scripture shows where Enoch was but never mentions Mary. The response given for this was that if God would do it for Enoch, “it surely would seem obvious” that he would do it for Mary as well.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Christ never taught to follow a book.

Actually he did and the Bible does as well.

Mat 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

Luk 24:45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,

Jhn 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

Act 17:2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,

Act 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

He gave the authority to the Apostles to teach. They did and ordained new bishops and clergy

.
Bishops, elders, and deacons.

They instructed orally as Christ did until they were inspiried by the Holy Spirit to write it down. Some 50 to 60 years after the Church was in existence.

50 years? Prove they were written 60 years later.

2Ti2:15 refers to Old testament and the oral teachings of the Churches. NO BIBLE YET.

But it applies to the scriptures. Scripture does not only refer to something in the past tense. God knew that the Bible would be there for the future.

You say you go to a church started by a ex atheist. You were more concerned in your original post as to whether a Catholic wore a covering and not whether they believed on Christ.

It is just a new topic, I get tired of the old topics.

I wear the covering and don’t wear pants. I don’t cut my hair but that won’t save me. The Catholic and Orthodox Church does not discount the covering and it remains in scripture and is use dby many of the faithful.

I did not say it would save you.
and good for you, I mean that.

Now where is your church? If I can not know then that contridicts Christ. For he has said the his Church shall prevail.

My church? I am not getting to give out personal information, nice try.
But the church is all who are saved, that is what scripture teaches

If your church is only for a few and hovering on a few points in order to exclude rather than to bring people to Christ you actually border on cult.

We welcome all and rejoice when they become Christians. But we teach the Bible. As far as excluding, the Catholic church makes people wait how many months before they can be a part of their church? And take classes? Who is exclusive?

The bible also says that many things were done and said by Christ JOHN 21:25. "And there are also many othe things which Jesus did the which, if they should be written everyone, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. The apostles brought out the essentials of the faith so that people can distinquish the true teachings. However, to say that anything their disciples taught or wrote can not be seen as truth is foolish.

The Catholic church does not follow one single extrabiblical doctrine that they have proven comes from Christ. Not a single one.

 

[Metaron]

I am the nicest person I know…have a good day.

Woah, I wasn’t poking fun. I was telling the truth. Don’t get all defensive. I’m on your side in a lot of issues.

By the way, the nicest person I know is my grandmom; I’ve never seen her do anything wrong, I think she’s a saint!

 

[Rightlydivide]

Woah, I wasn’t poking fun. I was telling the truth. Don’t get all defensive. I’m on your side in a lot of issues.

By the way, the nicest person I know is my grandmom; I’ve never seen her do anything wrong, I think she’s a saint!

I do not use emoticons. Perhaps I should. I understood you and good for Grandmothers!

 

[jmcrae]

The authentic teachings of Christ were around in verbal form and possibly in some written form depending upon your perspective about what was written when. The problem arises when people take nonbiblical doctrines that did not come from Christ and call it Sacred Tradition.

That’s a good start. So, you are aware that the earliest of the Early Church did not, in fact, look to the Scriptures to see what to believe or how to run their affairs; they looked directly to the Apostles and their successors.

That right there - what the Early Church did, and what the Catholic Church continues to do - is what we call the “Sacred Tradition.” As you can see, it predates the New Testament Bible by at least decades (if you think that people started venerating the New Testament at the moment that it began to be written down) if not centuries (assuming that people did not begin to venerate it until after it was officially authorized as Holy Scripture by the Pope, after hearing from the various Councils on the subject).

Do you have any evidence (like maybe a document, or else a year and someone’s name) that the Oral Tradition was ever done away with, in favour of going by the Bible alone?

 

[Rightlydivide]

That is not true at all. 1st Clement constantly refers to quotes from scriptures and that is even 60 or so years after the church formed and I have a hard time calling that the early church. You do not have anything else from the early church. I suppose the Didache but it tells the local congregation to test the Apostles, not the other way around.
Acts 15 is a council but even then James makes his decision based upon scripture.

That right there - what the Early Church did, and what the Catholic Church continues to do - is what we call the “Sacred Tradition.” As you can see, it predates the New Testament Bible by at least decades

You have no Sacred Traditions that can be proven to come before Paul wrote a letter of the gospels were written. I keep waiting for you to prove one and no one ever does.

 

[Vintagecoils]

Actually he did and the Bible does as well.

He did not mean just the scriptures.  For without him we would still be looking forward for the completion.   He brought the fullness of the truth and established the Church before the new testament was written.

.
Bishops, elders, and deacons.

To teach. And they did before the completion of all the epistles.

50 years? Prove they were written 60 years later.

To be sure the bible you have now didn’t get run off a printing press the day after Christ rose from the dead and get distributed around .

But it applies to the scriptures. Scripture does not only refer to something in the past tense. God knew that the Bible would be there for the future.

Of course he did and he was sure that what ever the Apostle taught until it was complete would reflect the true Church.

It is just a new topic, I get tired of the old topics.

I never get tired of the most important one.  Neither should you.

I did not say it would save you.
and good for you, I mean that.

My church? I am not getting to give out personal information, nice try.
But the church is all who are saved, that is what scripture teaches

This commment I don't understand.  You should be shouting it off the mountain tops and have a bright light on it.  Why a secret.  If a Catholic is in the wrong Church you should be announcing your true Church for all to be saved.

So if the True church is all who is saved are you saying Catholics are not saved but you won’t reveal your church so they can be brought to the truth?

We welcome all and rejoice when they become Christians. But we teach the Bible. As far as excluding, the Catholic church makes people wait how many months before they can be a part of their church? And take classes? Who is exclusive?

According to the Bible it took the Apostles sometime to really know what Christ was teaching them.  Then at the Crucifiction it was apprent some still were not ready nor understood.

The rich man had to come back to Christ in the night to continue to inquire of what it meant to be born again. I don’t believe being prudent and teaching people what they should know and then seeing if they even understand before entry is considered exclusion. Do not many anababtist and other groups require you are old enough to understand and then verbally accept Jesus before Babtising? Even though they are raised going to sunday school and church for years?

Jesus says we must confess he is Lord.  Takes some learning to understand that.

The Catholic church does not follow one single extrabiblical doctrine that they have proven comes from Christ. Not a single one.

Since you have limited yourself to only the scriptures you have limited yourself from knowing or understanding all that is from Christ. So how can you make this statement?

  Lord have mercy

 

[Joab_Anias]

That is not true at all. 1st Clement constantly refers to quotes from scriptures and that is even 60 or so years after the church formed and I have a hard time calling that the early church. You do not have anything else from the early church. I suppose the Didache but it tells the local congregation to test the Apostles, not the other way around.
Acts 15 is a council but even then James makes his decision based upon scripture.

On the Septuagint yes. The New Testament wasn’t written yet.

You have no Sacred Traditions that can be proven to come before Paul wrote a letter of the gospels were written. I keep waiting for you to prove one and no one ever does.

Yes we do. The new Pentecost is the first to come to mind, Sunday worship and then 5 of the 7 sacraments, prayer and evangelism but there are so many others I can’t name them all. Orally transmitting tradition also comes to mind. Writing the historical liturature the Church decided to make canon in the 4th century is also another one. Our bible is Catholic tradition and though the case for canon is closed, patristic writings have never ceased.

‘The apostles at that time first preached the Gospel but later by the will of God, they delivered it to us in the Scriptures, that it might be the foundation and pillar of our faith.’ Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3,1 (inter A.D. 180/199).

‘Since, therefore, the tradition from the apostles does thus exist in the Church, and is permanent among us, let us revert to the Scriptural proof furnished by those apostles who did also write the Gospel, in which they recorded the doctrine regarding God, pointing out that our Lord Jesus Christ is the truth, and that no lie is in Him.’ Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3,5,1 (inter A.D. 180/199).

‘For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us their writings? Would it not be necessary to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those whom they did commit the Churches?’ Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3, 4:1 (inter A.D. 180/199).

 

[teachccd]

This whole thread seems to be a debate between Catholics and RightlyDivide…He was an atheist who is slowly moving towards the truth. He’s not fully there but he is on a journey. He would not be on this forum in so many threads if he was not seeking truth. I am not debating on Protestant forums because I am grounded in Catholicism. I know that Christ left a Church, the Catholic Church, and from that Church founded by Christ we receive His life in the Eucharist and the sacraments.

RightlyDivide, keep up the good work. You came to see the existence of God. Then you saw the nature of God and that He sent His Son to redeem and save the whole of humanity. Now you will move into seeing more fully who this Christ is and what great and infinite gifts He left for us. May God bless you as you continue your journey and hear the so many Catholics that are promoting the truth regarding Jesus Christ and His Bride, the Catholic Church of which all of Chrisitanity subsides…teachccd

 

[lak611]

Do Catholic women cut their hair

Yes, and so do most Protestant women. The only Christian women that do not cut their hair are Amish. By your standards, the only Christian women who are following the Bible correctly are the Amish. Do you expect everyone to convert to the Amish faith?