P
Do we really want another 500 years of division between Catholics and Protestants?
- Status
C
Carlan
Guest
No problem.
AhhSome threads just move very quickly. Some linger languorously and end up in Thread Purgatory.
,PR you do make me smile, I love it when I run into you while lurking around.
Peace, Carlan
G
guanophore
Guest
Very Catholic.
But Sacred Tradition is the Word of God alive and well in the Church. And He did say that His Words will not pass away. It is you who is rejecting the Scriptures, when you refuse to believe that God is able to preserve His Word where He placed it. It is you who deny that He has the strength to follow through on His promises. You acknowledge that the Word of God came to the believers, but you deny that the HS was able to keep it where it was sent.
No, Niki, I think you and the Reformers you are following are wrong. Jesus did not use Scriptures as the “final court of appeals”. Scripture cannot BE a court of appeals. Scripture is evidence, and Jesus entered this inerrant evidence, but HE HIMSELF is the final court. It is in His hand that the Truth of the Scriptures witness against His detractors. HE is the FINAL JUDGE. You have been misled to replace even Jesus Himself with the Words of the book.
Yes, we are not to be led astray by the traditions of men. Sola Scriptura is one such tradition.
No, none of the Apostles ever ruled against traditions that did not conflict with Scripture. There is nothing inherintly wrong with traditions of men. All the Apostles followed some of them.
Scripture was never intended to be the “absolute Word of God” by itself such that anything not found in it must be “rejected”. This is a modern fundamentalist fantasy.
No, it does not. The Bible cannot be a court. A court must be presided over by a person, who is able to make decisions. The Scriptures can be brought into evidence, but they cannot 'decide". Books, however Holy, do not have the capacity to made decisions.
That is only because you reject the remainder of the evidence,and you are faithless with regard to Jesus carrying out His promises. You reject the Scripture that testifies that God preserves His Word:
Isa 55:10-11
10 "For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven,
and return not thither but water the earth,
making it bring forth and sprout,
giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater,
11 so shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth;
it shall not return to me empty,
but it shall accomplish that which I purpose,
and prosper in the thing for which I sent it.
For some reason you think the powerful Jesus we see in the Book of Revelation able to correct and chastize His Church to keep them from going astray.
No, first of all the Catholic Church is not “Roman”. The Catholic Church began in Palestine, with Hebrew origins. It spread East first, and the next Rite that developed was a Syrian Rite. The Roman Rite is actually later than all the others (Greek) because the Apostles did not come to Rome until after Churches had been planted. The NT was written in Hebrew and Greek, not Latin.
The CC gave us the Bible, yes.
You seem to have quite a bit to learn about the history of your faith, Niki. It was Catholics who were writing, copying, protecting, reading and establishing the NT.
G
guanophore
Guest
Are you trying to claim that Deut 25:4 is testimony that the Gospel of Luke is Scripture?
Indeed yes, canonicity that had always been recognized by Catholics, for Catholics. There is nothing about the NT that is not Catholic. That is why Catholic Teaching cannot contradict it. They both come from the same Source.
The Scriptures bring the faithful to salvation. They are not all that people need. If they were, Jesus would not have had to establish a Church. Neither would Paul would have had to ordain Timothy as a Bishop, and provide him with instructions on how to manage the Church. He would just have had Timothy make copies and pass them around
They were not, and they are not. I don’t think there is a Christian alive today that would claim they could live a good Christian life with only the Septuagint, which is what Paul was referring to in his letter to Timothy.
Thank you for citing your source. Some of us already know that, but it is good to know you are not plagarizing.
Yes, you missed a lot of questions above.
take as many posts as you need.
J
joe370
Guest
As a former non-catholic I too was taught to believe this. However, that would have meant that another church existed 300 years before the catholic church. This of course turned out to be historically, an inaccurate assessment, as per protestant and catholic scholars and the early church fathers.
Jesus’ Church existed before the holy Bible i.e. Jesus founded a Church, not a collection of books that would eventually be codified by the very Church that preceded said books. Moreover, the writings that eventually became known as the holy canon of the Bible weren’t even finished being written until nearly the end of the 1st century, and everyone knows that Jesus’ one church was established on that fateful day, Pentecost, 33 AD. Do we at least agree on that fact?
Furthermore, no one had an official canon (bound as we know it today) of the NT, as per all scholars (protestant or catholic) until the end of the 4th century, i.e. Jesus’ Church had already existed for almost 400 years without an officially compiled, bound and codified holy Bible. This fact was a hard pill to swallow, as a former non-catholic, but nonetheless true.
C
CompSciGuy
Guest
Yes, Jesus cares about the truth. Because the truth matters. He wasn’t just about “love each other and brush your teeth.” He cared about truth. And so do we.
J
joe370
Guest
Authoritatively recognized by who after the demise of Luke and Paul, i.e. who, in terms of a church, nominally speaking, (still in existence in the world today) continued to affirm infallibly (in the 1st century) what Luke and Paul had recognized as infallible?
Of the 27, none were ever disputed? Bruce also said:
“The only books about which there was any substantial doubt after the middle of the second century were some of those which come at the end of our New Testament.” Bruce went on to say: “Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, James and Jude, with the ‘Epistle of Barnabas,’ the Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, and the ‘Gospel according to the Hebrews,’ were disputed by some. Eusebius (c. 265-340) mentions as generally acknowledged, all the books of our New Testament except James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, which were disputed by some, but recognised by the majority.”
Who at the time, would have been in a position of authority to settle the dispute between the majority and the minority, via the guidance of the holy spirit of course?
A
asd72
Guest
It would be very helpful to know when you think the Catholic Church fell into error. When I was an evangelical Christian I was under the impression it started to decline with Constantine. But the Catholic interpretation of scripture is backed up with the writings of the Church Fathers. You can see they believed in baptismal regeneration, Apostolic Tradition, the real presence in the Eucharist, among other things.LOL. Thanks for that, I needed to laugh this morning. Are you one of those who has been taught that the CC was started by Constantine?
Here is an interesting post I would like to get your response. Do you think this member is full of hooey?
What does “canonize” mean to you?
When do you think the CC started?
You will need to add a link or a post number so we can find which other post you are using to support your modern innovation that Catholics did not write the NT. I think I have read all your posts. The most relevant post I read on this point of yours seemed to claim that God authored the Bible, which seemed to indicate you believed it fell out of heaven fully assembled.
Dont’ be sorry! It is very important to keep one’s priorities in joining this board. It can be very addicting. Especially when you are being swarmed by “aggressive” Catholics.
You have not answered any of the questions, but I am happy to wait till after dinner.
And these are writing during the 1st three centuries, when Christianity was severely prosecuted. It really shows that it is just not a valid argument.
O
october_baby
Guest
My bad, I should have qualified my statement by saying a lot of evangelicals and most former catholics. my comment about former catholics stands. The most anti-catholic protestants
I’ve seen post hateful things have admitted to be former catholics.
R
rfournier103
Guest
Before I catch up on the rest of the thread, I need to say something to you. The Catholic Church NEVER “added” anything to the Holy Bible to support ANYTHING. The Deuterocanon is the EXACT SAME CANON as our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ read, and learned. In fact, it was the ONLY canon he knew during His ENTIRE time on Earth. The JEWS discarded those books because they were not originally written in Hebrew. They were excluded by the Council of Jamnia. You don’t know your Biblical history, do you? The lie that the Catholic Church added anything is just that: a lie. The OLDEST Bibles contain ALL the books. Look it up. ALSO… if these books were good enough for Jesus, they’re good enough for you too.Gosh… you are very agressive… the point is not to put people down in this fourm but to encourage each other to find the truth in love.
ANYWAY…
Firstly… are you trying to tell me that the Catholic Church made the Bible? I’m pretty sure God did that. He may have used the authority of the Church at that time… the Church many have discovered the Bible (and then added a few extra books here and there to suit their changing theology (purgatory etc…)) but sorry… the Bible was all God.
NO… Mark’s authority came from GOD. Man isn’t authorised to give the authority of God… only God has that authority.
In point of fact, Paul admonished the Pharasees over tradition AND Jesus was also admonished by the Pharasees for flouting tradition (Jesus then put them in their place…)
1Thes says nothing about that beingcarried on through apostolic succession…
Not sure about your next arguement… Do you mean to try and tell me that the written wrod came before the apostles started sharing the good news? That doesn’t make sense… certainly not what the Catholic Church teaches… How does it oppose the scriptures???
LASTLY… since NO… the Bible is not a product of the Catholic Sacred Tradition… it’s shouldn’t be used to support Sacred Tradition… expecially since the Biblical text doesn’t support it (actually you can make the text say anything you want… but when taken in the context of the whole Bible and Jesus/apostles teachings then it doesn’t say ‘whatever’ you want)
Guan is not aggressive, but instead stridently defends the Catholic faith. Something I admire deeply.
The fact is those books have been there since before the time of Christ. They weren’t added. Even Luther included them in his translation. The issue is not, when discussing the canon of scripture, if someone added or subtracted them. The issue is whether or not a communion views them, and their historically disputed nature, as equal to the universally attested books. Further, regardless of whether or not we view them as canon, we would all do well to keep them handy for reading and learning.
Jon
C
cheezey
Guest
For my education, when did the Catholic Church become known as the Catholic Church?
C
cheezey
Guest
:clapping:Thank you! for if I am able to follow this path, as I’d like to, despite the obstacles, I would still think the same way on this matter. Jesus died for us ALL. Jesus loves us ALL. Jesus said:
Matthew 22
36 “Teacher, what is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 He replied, "You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your being, and with all your mind.
38 This is the first and greatest commandment.
39 And the second is like it: You must love your neighbor as you love yourself.
40 All the Law and the Prophets depend on these two commands."
Surely, this not open for debate…
P
pablope
Guest
Do you mean how the name evolved?
Since its founding in AD 33…First, it was known as The Way…(see Acts 9)…then the followers of The Way were called Christians (by Antioch members of The Way…see Acts too)…then was called Catholic Church, by Ignatius of Antioch sometime in AD 100 or so…and has been known since.
P
Porknpie
Guest
"See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).
Understand that this is the first written record … whether other records existed before it and were lost we do not know, but it shows the Church was being called Catholic by the early second century at the latest.
C
cheezey
Guest
I like this response, but to be honest, my thought is off thread…
I KNEW you were from Massachusetts!!!
G
guanophore
Guest
And the way Ignatius uses it, it sounds as if it was in common usage at that time. It may have come from Luke, where this term is first used to describe the One Church founded by Christ.
Acts 9:31
31 So the **church throughout all **Judea and Galilee and Sama’ria had peace and was built up; and walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit it was multiplied.
Acts 9:31
ekkleesía kath hólees
(from Interlinear Transliterated Bible)
P
PRmerger
Guest
This is a forum, after all, to discuss and debate.
Your comment would be like someone going to a Cruciverbalist convention who says, “I can’t believe everyone loves to do crossword puzzles here!”
Even the Reverend Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church folks? Should we just accept their ideology espoused in the name of Christ?
Or do we have a duty to admonish, rebuke and correct?
I don’t think there’s any argument about brand names. Rather, errors and falsehoods that are being proclaimed must be corrected.
It is never loving to confirm someone in his error.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Oh, p-shaw, friend, p-shaw!Ahh
Peace, Carlan
C
Carlan
Guest
Pr, I didn’t get the meaning of your words here, then I noticed the blush icon.Oh, p-shaw, friend, p-shaw!
pshaw
Expression of humility. Similar to “aw, shucks”, “you’re too kind”, etc.
Pshaw: I’m not that good at it.
So many definitions
but I like the above one.I breathed relief, Whew!
A joyful and a happy Christmas all!
Peace, Carlan
- Status