How do Catholics explain 1 Timothy 2:5 and Hebrews 7:26?

[sola_scriptura]

I can see how you could reach to that conclusion, but look at the text carefully.

Ephesians 2:6 “And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus”

If you read it in the context of the verses before and after, you’d see more clearly that the reference to us being raised and sit together in heavenly places, refers to Jesus representing us in front of his Father. Not us physically being there, but in spirit in Jesus. That’s why it says “in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus”.

We will literally be there after He comes again for his people, and after the resurrection like 1 Thessalonians 4:16-18 says:

“For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Wherefore comfort one another with these words.”

How can you be sitting at his right hand if you’re in the grave dead in Christ waiting for his return? the answer is simple, you’re dead or alive here on earth till he comes for us.

Ariel >>

I guess you’re eluding to the idea of soul sleep? If so you’re wrong – pure & simple. The elect go to heaven; but are resurrected at the beginning of the millennial kingdom.

When Jesus said to the thief on the cross today you will join me in paradise there was nothing ambiguous about those words. The “soul sleeper” proponents alternative explanation for this verse teeters on absurd; this is a poor doctrine, a minority view (even though Luther seemed to advocate the idea), and represents a departure from early and historical Christian and Jewish theology. Simply stated, it is nonsense & should be rejected outright.

 

[CentralFLJames]

You cite passages & then don’t even provide the text from the passages itself – but rather your own synopsis of its message? None of the passages you point to say that a church may contravene scripture? You’re arguments have no intellectual worth, they’re simple rhetoric.

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness (2 Tim. 3:16).

Of course when Paul wrote this the New Testament wasn’t completely written yet – so he is speaking of the Old Testament. However, the Gospels have become Scripture and as such fall under this same rule Paul enumerates.

If that’s not enough I would gladly take a single Catholic typology of Mary (for instance) – Mary as the Ark of the Covenant; and debunk it using solely Old Testament text.

However, it won’t matter – someone will invariably come out of left field and say Luther was mentally unstable – or some other red herring (and that will be the crux of their argument – because of course there is no theological argument that can effectively win the day for these imaginary typologies).

Oh PAALLLLEEESE! Cut me a break. I give you over a dozen scripture references utterly debunking sola scripture and you pull one single one out of context as a proof text!!

This forum is limited to 6000 characters. I had to cut it down as it was. If you are too lazy to read the verses get over it. The synopsis are specific to the case I made and you can’t refute them.

I love your flamboyant exegesis - ‘well Paul was telling us “by scripture alone” even though he was talking about the old testament and New Testament was not yet written’. HAHAHA you got to be kidding me! You sir make up your own sola as you fly by the seat of your pants. You are intellectually dishonest and you know it!

Scripture tells us that it is taught orally by tradition and that’s unassailable. PERIOD. You can’t change God’s word without risking eternal damnation. You are inventing entirely new teachings that no apostle EVER taught. Admit it. Not a SINGLE apostle EVER taught “by scripture alone” - there WAS NOT ONE SENTENCE OF RECOGNIZED WRITTEN NT SCRIPTURE until decades years after Christ died! The Bible was assembled by the Catholic Church - the successor of the apostles and the only one authorized to teach. Who authorized YOU to teach? God didn’t.

GIVE BY NAME A SINGLE APOSTLE WHO EVERY SAID “BY THE NEW TESTAMENT ALONE”. If you can’t produce the text then stop spewing lies and teachings of men.

James

 

[sola_scriptura]

Now that’s humble!!!

Humility or lack of it has nothing to do with this question. Every believer should proudly speak the truth and refute falsity aggressively. UnGodly arrogance is boasting of ourselves – Calvinists understand this doctrine better than most. However, we may boast of God.

 

[Harmony1988]

I find it funny that someone made a comment about ‘spiritual incest’
Did someone forget the begetting of God in physical form through 3rd person of the Trinity?

Oh err, I guess we forget such simple things once in a while.

 

[sola_scriptura]

Oh PAALLLLEEESE! Cut me a break. I give you over a dozen scripture references utterly debunking sola scripture and you pull one single one out of context as a proof text!!

This forum is limited to 6000 characters. I had to cut it down as it was. If you are too lazy to read the verses get over it. The synopsis are specific to the case I made and you can’t refute them.

I love your flamboyant exegesis - ‘well Paul was telling us “by scripture alone” even though he was talking about the old testament and New Testament was not yet written’. HAHAHA you got to be kidding me! You sir make up your own sola as you fly by the seat of your pants. You are intellectually dishonest and you know it!

Scripture tells us that it is taught orally by tradition and that’s unassailable. PERIOD. You can’t change God’s word without risking eternal damnation. You are inventing entirely new teachings that no apostle EVER taught. Admit it. Not a SINGLE apostle EVER taught “by scripture alone” - there WAS NOT ONE SENTENCE OF RECOGNIZED WRITTEN NT SCRIPTURE until decades years after Christ died! The Bible was assembled by the Catholic Church - the successor of the apostles and the only one authorized to teach. Who authorized YOU to teach? God didn’t.

GIVE BY NAME A SINGLE APOSTLE WHO EVERY SAID “BY THE NEW TESTAMENT ALONE”. If you can’t produce the text then stop spewing lies and teachings of men.

James

you’re ridiculous. You haven’t said a single substantive thing in your entire rant. Zealous & childish rhetoric!

 

[CentralFLJames]

you’re ridiculous. You haven’t said a single substantive thing in your entire rant. Zealous & childish rhetoric!

I didn’t think you could answer the mail on your lie when I called you on the carpet about the absurdity that any apostles ever taught salvation only by the written word of God when there was NO WRITTEN APOSTOLIC WORD of God for decades after the early Church was first formed. The Church came BEFORE the Bible. Tradition and apostolic teaching through The Church brings us scripture. The Bible did not beget the church.

If you can’t accept this plain historical fact then you have ZERO credibility.

James

 

[sola_scriptura]

I didn’t think you could answer the mail on your lie when I called you on the carpet about the absurdity that any apostles ever taught salvation only by the written word of God when there was NO WRITTEN APOSTOLIC WORD of God for decades after the early Church was first formed. The Church came BEFORE the Bible. Tradition and apostolic teaching through The Church brings us scripture. The Bible did not beget the church.

If you can’t accept this plain historical fact then you have ZERO credibility.

James

You’re absurdity is revealed every time you utter a post. You’re signature alone (free 1,000 souls from purgatory) is ridiculous.

Sola Scriptura doesn’t mean we ignore valid tradition or history. It means we do ignore the erroneous teachings of man made institutions like the RCC – that clearly abrogate the words of Christ and His Apostles.

You actually think that your church has the authority to abrogate the plain meaning of scripture – and then you proudly proclaim the superiority of your absurd argument. It’s laughable …

 

[CentralFLJames]

You’re absurdity is revealed every time you utter a post. You’re signature alone (free 1,000 souls from purgatory) is ridiculous.

Sola Scriptura doesn’t mean we ignore valid tradition or history. It means we do ignore the erroneous teachings of man made institutions like the RCC – that clearly abrogate the words of Christ and His Apostles.

You actually think that your church has the authority to abrogate the plain meaning of scripture – and then you proudly proclaim the superiority of your absurd argument. It’s laughable …

Grasping at straws of desperation now by having to attack me personally for a link in my signature? Such ad-homonym and childish tactics reveal your desperation that you can’t back up what you say with scripture one iota. Get back and answer the mail and be a man rather than play dodge ball.

Show me in scripture a definition for “sola scriptura” that defines it in the manner you specify. You can’t because its not there. You can’t even point me to a common definition that all such fundamentalist like yourself use can you? Go ahead - show us an authoritative definition of sola scriptura . Talk about ridiculous things, ahem, your moniker, would have us believe you are an expert in sola scriptura. OK Mr. sola_scriptura - give us the definition that all protestants use. And just who is we? You and your KJV and church of one?

We don’t need any more self styled preachers coming into CAF to spew their own private interpretation. There are 800 million seperate protestant private and erronious interpreations floating around - what makes you think yours is any better than the other 799,999,999 other wanna-be-popes out there?

When you mock the RCC like you do here while professing to be learned enough to teach scripture you become responsible for your heresy and false teachings and you fall headlong into these verses brother:

“Those that reject you reject me”
“Not everyone who calls me Lord Lord will enter My Kingdom”.

The Catholic Church has not abrogated any such thing as you bear false witness. Show me a reference to a prior teaching of The Church that was revoked or kindly retract your false charge.

I have yet to see any evidence of credibility from you other than a smug disregard for the CC. What is your pedigree. Where you taught by anyone who personally knew Jesus or an apostle? Or did you fall for the “do it yourself salvation” package at the bookstore and buy into the teachings of mass marketers?

James

 

[SenorSalsa]

Grasping at straws of desperation now by having to attack me personally for a link in my signature? Such ad-homonym and childish tactics reveal your desperation that you can’t back up what you say with scripture one iota. Get back and answer the mail and be a man rather than play dodge ball.

Show me in scripture a definition for “sola scriptura” that defines it in the manner you specify. You can’t because its not there. You can’t even point me to a common definition that all such fundamentalist like yourself use can you? Go ahead - show us an authoritative definition of sola scriptura . Talk about ridiculous things, ahem, your moniker, would have us believe you are an expert in sola scriptura. OK Mr. sola_scriptura - give us the definition that all protestants use. And just who is we? You and your KJV and church of one?

We don’t need any more self styled preachers coming into CAF to spew their own private interpretation. There are 800 million seperate protestant private and erronious interpreations floating around - what makes you think yours is any better than the other 799,999,999 other wanna-be-popes out there?

When you mock the RCC like you do here while professing to be learned enough to teach scripture you become responsible for your heresy and false teachings and you fall headlong into these verses brother:

“Those that reject you reject me”
“Not everyone who calls me Lord Lord will enter My Kingdom”.

The Catholic Church has not abrogated any such thing as you bear false witness. Show me a reference to a prior teaching of The Church that was revoked or kindly retract your false charge.

I have yet to see any evidence of credibility from you other than a smug disregard for the CC. What is your pedigree. Where you taught by anyone who personally knew Jesus or an apostle? Or did you fall for the “do it yourself salvation” package at the bookstore and buy into the teachings of mass marketers?

James

I am on your side of the argument, but accusing somebody of making Ad Hominem comments and then proceeding to smear their name isn’t exactly a good way to try and win a debate.

For a decent debate point, you could have stayed with your point that when Paul said that all Scripture is suitable for teaching, he did not have all of Scripture, and could not possibly have passed judgement on books that were not written, and that being the case, we must therefore be Sola OT. Or you could mention the fact that Paul does not say that that which is not contained in scripture is not worthy for teaching. All he is making a point for is the Inerrancy of the Written Word of God.

And a question for Sola_Scriptura, how did we come about making sure that every book in the bible is inerrant?

If the answer is simply men put it together, the statement is a logical absurdity. Because a fallible man cannot possible decide on something that is inerrant. This is akin to saying that we could create something greater than ourselves. By the sole fact we are superior, as creator, to the creation. However, Scripture is, and I am assuming here that you agree, superior to Human Capacity. Therefore, men needed Divine Assistance in compiling the books of the bible. The canon they came up with is not mentioned in the Bible, so they made a decision based not on Scripture, and thus, went against Sola Scriptura. It must also be noted that while Canon books have been definitively stated as being inerrant, the majority of the books not included in the Bible were not declared errant, simply the Council decided they could not be positive of its inerrancy.

NOTE: that last paragraph presupposes possible answers to the question I posed, feel free to answer differently if you feel I did not address a point you feel you can make

 

[tGette]

For a decent debate point, you could have stayed with your point that when Paul said that all Scripture is suitable for teaching, he did not have all of Scripture, and could not possibly have passed judgement on books that were not written, and that being the case, we must therefore be Sola OT. Or you could mention the fact that Paul does not say that that which is not contained in scripture is not worthy for teaching. All he is making a point for is the Inerrancy of the Written Word of God.

Excellent point!
I am just butting in…lol!
Only because 5 minutes ago I just got done reading a book that was mentioning this very passage.

When Paul said this, was he telling the people that his writings are the Word of God? Did he know they were going to become part of the compiled Bible?

 

[sola_scriptura]

Grasping at straws of desperation now by having to attack me personally for a link in my signature? Such ad-homonym and childish tactics reveal your desperation that you can’t back up what you say with scripture one iota. Get back and answer the mail and be a man rather than play dodge ball.

Show me in scripture a definition for “sola scriptura” that defines it in the manner you specify. You can’t because its not there. You can’t even point me to a common definition that all such fundamentalist like yourself use can you? Go ahead - show us an authoritative definition of sola scriptura . Talk about ridiculous things, ahem, your moniker, would have us believe you are an expert in sola scriptura. OK Mr. sola_scriptura - give us the definition that all protestants use. And just who is we? You and your KJV and church of one?

We don’t need any more self styled preachers coming into CAF to spew their own private interpretation. There are 800 million seperate protestant private and erronious interpreations floating around - what makes you think yours is any better than the other 799,999,999 other wanna-be-popes out there?

When you mock the RCC like you do here while professing to be learned enough to teach scripture you become responsible for your heresy and false teachings and you fall headlong into these verses brother:

“Those that reject you reject me”
“Not everyone who calls me Lord Lord will enter My Kingdom”.

The Catholic Church has not abrogated any such thing as you bear false witness. Show me a reference to a prior teaching of The Church that was revoked or kindly retract your false charge.

I have yet to see any evidence of credibility from you other than a smug disregard for the CC. What is your pedigree. Where you taught by anyone who personally knew Jesus or an apostle? Or did you fall for the “do it yourself salvation” package at the bookstore and buy into the teachings of mass marketers?

James

Urrrrrr … dang heathen protestants, they’ll never get it?

The reason why I won’t continue is because I can’t bash your silliness like I really want to. Rome is your home – it will never be mine (well I reserve the right to visit)

Better than the last foreign country I visited (Iraq and Kuwait) – at least Italian girls are cute!!! Nice churches too (I visited a few years back – nice city overall until you hit the outskirts that is).

Bottom line is I already quoted a passage that tells us Scripture is to be used for reproof, correction, and teaching. You can take that how ever you want to – I could care less. You get all bunched up and mad at me, I’m just gonna laugh (like I’m doing right now).

 

[sola_scriptura]

I am on your side of the argument, but accusing somebody of making Ad Hominem comments and then proceeding to smear their name isn’t exactly a good way to try and win a debate.

For a decent debate point, you could have stayed with your point that when Paul said that all Scripture is suitable for teaching, he did not have all of Scripture, and could not possibly have passed judgement on books that were not written, and that being the case, we must therefore be Sola OT. Or you could mention the fact that Paul does not say that that which is not contained in scripture is not worthy for teaching. All he is making a point for is the Inerrancy of the Written Word of God.

And a question for Sola_Scriptura, how did we come about making sure that every book in the bible is inerrant?

Sola OT is all I would need to debunk at least a few RCC typologies. As far as the RCC building the Bible – authorship and canonization of Scripture was a long, drawn out, and complex process. Indeed we have newly discovered manuscripts and even better written biblical versions than we used to (NASB is a great example). Finally, most protestant denominations actually hold to creeds like the Apostolic & Nicene – for the most part the errors I see are in the infallible Papal declarations. Most of the ecumenical councils were fine.

If the answer is simply men put it together, the statement is a logical absurdity. Because a fallible man cannot possible decide on something that is inerrant. This is akin to saying that we could create something greater than ourselves. By the sole fact we are superior, as creator, to the creation. However, Scripture is, and I am assuming here that you agree, superior to Human Capacity. Therefore, men needed Divine Assistance in compiling the books of the bible. The canon they came up with is not mentioned in the Bible, so they made a decision based not on Scripture, and thus, went against Sola Scriptura. It must also be noted that while Canon books have been definitively stated as being inerrant, the majority of the books not included in the Bible were not declared errant, simply the Council decided they could not be positive of its inerrancy.

NOTE: that last paragraph presupposes possible answers to the question I posed, feel free to answer differently if you feel I did not address a point you feel you can make

I don’t need to really prove that the idea of sola scriptura is biblically based. We (protestants) do not ignore history or tradition. However, what we can know is when scripture states something is an apple, it’s an apple. When it states something is blue that thing cannot be green. The best evidence for Apostolic tradition is the words they themselves wrote (or dictated). Hence it is the most reliable authority (sola scriptura proponents merely point out this obvious fact).

When I’m told Mary is the Ark & I read that the Ark was the throne of God which was the center of the atonement ritual – where blood from the sacrifices would be sprinkled on the mercy seat – I can know that typology is faulty.

When I’m told that brothers and sisters really mean cousins (and have debated the point to death & have seen every fallacious argument men could invent) I can know it’s wrong.

When I hear arguments that the saints or Mary can intercede for us when Paul clearly writes we have “one” mediator before God – I can be confident in my objection to the practice.

So again I don’t need to argue that scripture should be our sole authority – all I need to argue is that the Apostles didn’t lie when they wrote it — simple.

For the most part Catholics typically misconstrue the doctrine of sola scriptura. It does not mean that scripture is our only source of information – it merely means it is the supreme source of information. As I said it simply posits the Apostles didn’t lie & they were divinely inspired when they wrote or dictated scripture. It understands that God did not allow His word to be slandered or adulterated.

So when we see the Roman church clearly abrogating the plain words of Scripture & when we see interpretations that defy any reasonable standard of logic — that’s enough.

 

[CentralFLJames]

I am on your side of the argument, but accusing somebody of making Ad Hominem comments and then proceeding to smear their name isn’t exactly a good way to try and win a debate.

I’d agree in concept if I thought I had smeared his name. But I was careful to only challenge him to live up to his name and give us references worthy of a person who Christened himself “sola scriptura”. But admittedly perhaps it was impolite to invite him to step up to the plate knowing ahead of time he’d fall on his face and smear his own name.

For the record, the rest of the comments are not personally directed and only bemoan and lampoon the blatant absurdity of the implicit system of philosophy implied in SS that an individual operating within the plurality of an “invisible church” (also implied by SS) can bootstrap herself into salvation through a self-teaching bible. That mental error would make everyone a pope and against all current evidence to the contrary (i.e. 30,000+ competing protestant sects) equally infallible without any regard to individual intellectual capacity or even ability to read or write.

I think now your current tact has him re-centered on somthing he can actually take a swing at and actualy “get on base with” without falling over. So I will go quiet here for a while to see how he responds…

James

 

[Bwsherman]

Urrrrrr … dang heathen protestants, they’ll never get it?

The reason why I won’t continue is because I can’t bash your silliness like I really want to. Rome is your home – it will never be mine (well I reserve the right to visit)

Better than the last foreign country I visited (Iraq and Kuwait) – at least Italian girls are cute!!! Nice churches too (I visited a few years back – nice city overall until you hit the outskirts that is).

Bottom line is I already quoted a passage that tells us Scripture is to be used for reproof, correction, and teaching. You can take that how ever you want to – I could care less. You get all bunched up and mad at me, I’m just gonna laugh (like I’m doing right now).

Sorry to butt in here, but I love it when the forementioned verse is used to prove the validity of sola scriptura. I am curious though, how do you reconcile it with 1 Tim 3:15:
“But if I tarry long: That thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.”

I agree that scripture is useful for all the things mentioned, however, it does not say that only scripture is useful for those things because we need other things such as prayer. Furthermore, St. Paul does not edify the scripture by giving it the context in which you understand it. He does give to the church her due respect by rightly calling her the pillar and foundation of truth.

 

[adrift]

When I’m told Mary is the Ark & I read that the Ark was the throne of God which was the center of the atonement ritual – where blood from the sacrifices would be sprinkled on the mercy seat – I can know that typology is faulty.

Your statement is so superficial. The Ark was not a throne. It was a box that contained the Ten Commandments. The Law which Jesus came to fulfill and make a new covenant with us. Mary carried Jesus in her womb making her the New Ark of the Covenant.

When I’m told that brothers and sisters really mean cousins (and have debated the point to death & have seen every fallacious argument men could invent) I can know it’s wrong.

If you are open to what the scriptures say, you can know that your arguments are fallacious. I haven’t seen your arguments but I bet you ignore those that goes against what you have decided. For instance, the giving of Mary to an apostles care or the way his brethren talk to Jesus not like a older relative but a younger.

When I hear arguments that the saints or Mary can intercede for us when Paul clearly writes we have “one” mediator before God – I can be confident in my objection to the practice.

Then why does Paul ask others to pray for him and tell others he will pray for them?

So when we see the Roman church clearly abrogating the plain words of Scripture & when we see interpretations that defy any reasonable standard of logic — that’s enough.

Yes that is how I see your interpretation that of defying logic.

 

[sola_scriptura]

Sorry to butt in here, but I love it when the forementioned verse is used to prove the validity of sola scriptura. I am curious though, how do you reconcile it with 1 Tim 3:15:
“But if I tarry long: That thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.”

I agree that scripture is useful for all the things mentioned, however, it does not say that only scripture is useful for those things because we need other things such as prayer. Furthermore, St. Paul does not edify the scripture by giving it the context in which you understand it. He does give to the church her due respect by rightly calling her the pillar and foundation of truth.

Indeed but how can you prove he was referring to Rome?

During his day there was barely a church in Rome. Most of the church was centered in Asia minor and the Hellenic world (along with Jerusalem). Even after the Apostles passed the Apostolic fathers (like Polycarp, Clement, and Ignatius) never served under a Pope. The church was run be local bishops and there were smaller churches during that period that were not under a bishop. None of the Apostolic Fathers said those churches were any less a part of the church?

Once Rome became involved in the mix everything changed – go figure? Well – protestants know better.

 

[Arglaze]

I guess you’re eluding to the idea of soul sleep? If so you’re wrong – pure & simple. The elect go to heaven; but are resurrected at the beginning of the millennial kingdom.

The idea that when you die you go to heaven, but at the resurrection you weren’t really in heaven, you are being resurrected are contradictory. And there is no scripture proof to show when you die you go to heaven. The only thing that goes to “God” not heaven is the breath of life He gave you when he gave you life. And I quote the scriptures not my paraphrasing:

Psalms 146:4 Speaking of someone who dies, “His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish.” Which means, you have no state of consciousness.

Ecclesiastes 9:5-6. “For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun.”

Job 14:12 “So man lieth down, and riseth not: till the heavens be no more, they shall not awake, nor be raised out of their sleep.”

Psalms 104:29 “Thou hidest thy face, they are troubled: thou takest away their breath, they die, and return to their dust.”

There’s no such thing in the scriptures such as when you die the elect go to Heaven, and then at the resurrection those people are resurrected, it makes no sense. If they are in heaven, they don’t need to be resurrected. But if they are resurrected, then they were never in heaven. But in the grave, Sheol, tomb, whatever the term you want to use for the state of the dead.

When Jesus said to the thief on the cross today you will join me in paradise there was nothing ambiguous about those words. The “soul sleeper” proponents alternative explanation for this verse teeters on absurd; this is a poor doctrine, a minority view (even though Luther seemed to advocate the idea), and represents a departure from early and historical Christian and Jewish theology. Simply stated, it is nonsense & should be rejected outright.

The statement in the Bible that Jesus said to the thief was:
“And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise”
It is a typo of translation. Many scholars agree. The statement was Verily I say unto thee Today (meaning he’s saying what he’s saying in that day), thou shall be in paradise.

This is easily seen in fact, because the thief did not die that day, because they broke his legs so he couldn’t escape, as was the custom and then they hung them again on following days till he died. Jesus on the other hand died in those 3 hours he hung on the cross, and that’s why they didn’t break his legs, because He was already dead, so no need to break them.
Since the thief didn’t die nor go to paradise that day, that would make Jesus a liar, unless the statement is a typo.

Again the statement in its correct Aramaic or Greek translation is:

“Verily I say unto thee Today, shalt thou be with me in paradise” Luke 23:43 and its meaning is future, not for that day.

The “soul sleeper” explanation according to the texts above has Biblical foundation, while the “going to heaven at death” explanation doesn’t.

Ariel >>

 

[Arglaze]

I didn’t think you could answer the mail on your lie when I called you on the carpet about the absurdity that any apostles ever taught salvation only by the written word of God when there was NO WRITTEN APOSTOLIC WORD of God for decades after the early Church was first formed. The Church came BEFORE the Bible. Tradition and apostolic teaching through The Church brings us scripture. The Bible did not beget the church.

If you can’t accept this plain historical fact then you have ZERO credibility.

James

This statement is false. The Scriptures the apostles used to preach the Word of God was the Old Testament, which contains the Gospel of Christ and the NT just makes it even clearer.

Here’s an example found in Acts 17:10-13:
“And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming [thither] went into the synagogue of the Jews.
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.
Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.
But when the Jews of Thessalonica had knowledge that the word of God was preached of Paul at Berea, they came thither also, and stirred up the people.”

They had a Bible and it was called, the Law and the Prophets. The Church doesn’t determine how God is understood and worshiped, God’s Word tells us how He should be understood and Worshiped. God’s Word made the Church, and not the other way around.

Jesus said: “Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.” The only scriptures available to them were the Old Testament, so the Old Testament gives testimony of him, and the New Testament scriptures only make it clearer, not new.

God Bless

 

[Arglaze]

You’re signature alone (free 1,000 souls from purgatory) is ridiculous.

Yeah, I noticed that signature. I would like some Scripture proof that the purgatory exists also, or just send me a private message with Bible texts so that I can study it.

I will save you some time though by saying, “Purgatory” is a man made doctrine as well, not the Word of God.

And please correct me if I’m wrong, but it was used to say that after death, you can buy your way to heaven with money (one of the reasons why the mafia paid the Catholic church for their sins, but thats another can of worms no one needs to reply to), even though it wasn’t invented originally for that. It was used like that in times past.

Hmmm, I have some research to do.

 

[SenorSalsa]

Sola OT is all I would need to debunk at least a few RCC typologies. As far as the RCC building the Bible – authorship and canonization of Scripture was a long, drawn out, and complex process. Indeed we have newly discovered manuscripts and even better written biblical versions than we used to (NASB is a great example). Finally, most protestant denominations actually hold to creeds like the Apostolic & Nicene – for the most part the errors I see are in the infallible Papal declarations. Most of the ecumenical councils were fine.

How can you claim to do anything with only the OT, when the NT is the fulfillment and completion of the OT? Prove to me that I can eat shellfish using only the OT. Prove to me that we(as non-jews) are able to gain salvation

What makes a Council any more trustworthy than a Pope?

When I’m told Mary is the Ark & I read that the Ark was the throne of God which was the center of the atonement ritual – where blood from the sacrifices would be sprinkled on the mercy seat – I can know that typology is faulty.

When I’m told that brothers and sisters really mean cousins (and have debated the point to death & have seen every fallacious argument men could invent) I can know it’s wrong.

snip

So when we see the Roman church clearly abrogating the plain words of Scripture & when we see interpretations that defy any reasonable standard of logic — that’s enough.

Are you telling me that nothing in the BIble alludes to anything else?

So in Luke 4 when it says “He stood up to read
and was handed a scroll of the prophet Isaiah. He unrolled the scroll and found the passage where it was written:
The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring glad tidings to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free,
and to proclaim a year acceptable to the Lord.”
Rolling up the scroll, he handed it back to the attendant and sat down, and the eyes of all in the synagogue looked intently at him.
He said to them, “Today this scripture passage is fulfilled in your hearing.”"

Jesus must have been lying. Clearly Isaiah couldn’t have been talking about Jesus, he did not know Jesus. He could have only meant himself