I received this email today..

  • Thread starter Thread starter arther1045
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

arther1045

Guest
I received this Email today. I did not slander this person, I suggested that they study up on their history when they said the CC added 7 books to the bible in the 1500s. I don’t like to argue religion often, what do you people think of this. This started on a site when this poster was bashing th CC and especially the Pope.

And no i am not a troll using this to start a fight with you. I am a Catholic just not really good at defended the Catholic Faith.

Okay, let’s look at the scripture you brought up. 2 Thess. 2, “So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings [or traditions] we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.”

Firstly, the word used has two meanings, “teachings” or “traditions”. Either way, it doesn’t particularly matter to me. Paul is telling them to hold fast to the teachings that he taught them! It’s ridiculous that you somehow equate Paul’s biblical teachings to Catholic tradition. If you look at the context, Paul is telling them to continue doing what he taught them to do.

Now 1 Tim 3:15. Firstly, let’s quote it in context. Starting in verse 14, “Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, 15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.”

Yes, the church is the pillar of truth. The CC? Not quite. They are the keepers of that truth. WHAT truth? The truth the PAUL brought them, as the Word of God! Listen to what he says. “Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions”. He’s saying that if I don’t make it there, listen to the church based on the letter I’m writing you. Even in GIVING the church that title, Paul is still referring his truth back to the letter he is writing! That is, a true church is BIBLICALLY BASED. The church is the body of Christ, and the keeper of truth. The idea that this verse refers to a specific denomination (namely the CC) is ridiculous and unfounded.

You’re quick to insult me, call me a liar, and slander me on my points. Yet you haven’t proven me wrong, you just say “YOU’RE WRONG” and you move on, simply ignoring my points. Do a word study on “tradition”. Don’t take my word for it. Certainly it depends on the translation, but it’s no mystery that the Bible overall casts a negative light on the traditions of men. A huge chunk of Jesus’ ministry was DEDICATED to yelling at religious leaders who added to the OT scriptures! It’s baffling that Catholics don’t see the modern day correlation.

I never said, “all truth has to be in the Bible”. So I make no effort to defend that point. All truth is NOT in the Bible. That would be ludicrous. The book would be enormous. However, everything in the Bible is true and fully sufficient for our salvation.

Finally, if the Roman Catholic wants to say we need sacred tradition in order to be properly equipped doctrinally and spiritually, then he must establish that the Bible is not sufficient for teaching, or proof, correction, and training in righteousness – and doctrinal issues. The burden of proof is on you. 2 Tim. 3:16-17, “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.”

Clearly the Bible is sufficient to equip us for EVERY good work. It is sufficient to train us in righteousness. It is sufficient to teach. It is sufficient to correct and rebuke. It is sufficient that every man may be adequate. Paul, and Jesus for that matter, never once lean on tradition to be sufficient. They both ALWAYS used scripture.

Find me, sir, your passages supporting the idea that tradition is the second pillar of our faith, somehow equal with scripture.

You see, once you accept tradition as equal OR greater than scripture, you have unlocked the ability to add anything you like to God’s Word. That is absolute heresy.

I know you’re upset, understandably so I suppose. But I urge you to meditate on 1 Peter 3:15 while talking to me. “But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.”

I pray for the Holy
 
yes… the problem is that Bible base believers believe that they dont need the Church, all they need is the Bible. try to convince them otherwise.

they qoute passage but they cannot connect them to Church. they dont seem to realize that all the letters written were to the Church, to teach the people in the Church. Bible believers only see that the letters has been written to anyone and not the Church. they dont connect the Teachings and the Church.
they cant do it because that would mean that would have to find the Church to which the letters were writtten to.

that is why they are into so much confusion.

they are not worried about understanding what is written. they are more worried about becoming authority themselves by reading and assuming and claiming something that is not really talking about them . another thing is that they will continue to enterpret passage in a way that has to be opposed to the CC. no matter what their enterpretation should be it must oppose the CC.

**
Pray for the Church, pray to the holy father. that he might stand against the devouring wolves that seems to in full force these days.**
 
He’s saying that if I don’t make it there, listen to the church based on the letter I’m writing you. Even in GIVING the church that title, Paul is still referring his truth back to the letter he is writing! That is, a true church is BIBLICALLY BASED

This argument lacks coherence. It seems that this person might be arguing (although I don’t really understand what he is trying to argue) that since Paul is referring to his own letter, that he is referring to the Bible, and therefore the a true church is Biblically based??? I am NOT going to try and construct a syllogism for that beautiful piece of logic. Would this author contend that Paul’s words are more important because he wrote them rather than speaking them? Why should the written word be of more value than the spoken word, i.e., teachings based on oral tradition?

Finally, as Wisdomseeker mentioned, he was writing to the Church, as in the Catholic Church, as there was no other Church at that point.

Finally, if the Roman Catholic wants to say we need sacred tradition in order to be properly equipped doctrinally and spiritually, then he must establish that the Bible is not sufficient for teaching, or proof, correction, and training in righteousness – and doctrinal issues. The burden of proof is on you. 2 Tim. 3:16-17, “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.”

–Isn’t it worth pointing out that the reference to scripture in 2 Tim. 3:16-17 can’t be to the New Testament AS IT HAD NOT BEEN COMPILED YET. Therefore, as the aforementioned scripture verse cannot refer to the New Testament (or the Bible as we know it), I would reject his trying to transfer the burden of proof to the Church. I’m sure you already argued on these lines, but since the New Testament did not fall out of the sky, and was in fact compiled over hundreds of years, ask him on what basis the books of the New Testament were selected. The only answer can be TRADITION. Tradition was used to separate the inspired books and those less inspired.
 
If it weren’t for the Catholic church, this person wouldn’t even have a bible…
 
I received this Email today. I did not slander this person, I suggested that they study up on their history when they said the CC added 7 books to the bible in the 1500s.
Actually it is exactly the opposite: the Protestants removed 7 books from the bible in the 1500s.

All Christian bibles prior to the Protestant rebellion contained the 7 deuterocanonical books and the deutercanons in Daniel and Esther. They are:

Tobit
Judith
Additions to Esther (Vulgate Esther 10:4-16:24, but see also Esther in the NAB)
Wisdom
Sirach, also called Ben Sira or Ecclesiasticus
Baruch, including the Letter of Jeremiah (Additions to Jeremiah in the Septuagint)
Additions to Daniel:
Song of the Three Children (Vulgate Daniel 3:24-90)
Story of Susanna (Vulgate Daniel 13, Septuagint prologue)
The Idol Bel and the Dragon (Vulgate Daniel 14, Septuagint epilogue)
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees

These books were in the Catholic bible since it was first assembled in the 4th century (and still are) because they are in the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Old Testament that was in use at the time of Jesus and his apostles. The vast majority of the OT quotes in the NT are from the Septuagint, showing that this was the version used by Jesus and the apostles.

When Martin Luther removed these books in the 1500s, the Council of Trent found it necessary to dogmatically define these books as inspired, so that there would be no doubt within the Church. That’s where your friend is confused - just because something was dogmatically defined in the 1500s, that does not mean that the doctrine was “invented” at that time.

Church councils almost never dogmatically define something unless someone starts teaching to the contrary. That’s why so many things were defined by the Council of Trent - the Protestants arose in the 1500s and started disecting the bible, trashing the Blessed Virgin and many other truths, so the council stepped in to defend them. Consequently, many modern Protestants mistakenly think that doctrines like the perpetual virgininty of Mary and papal infallibility were “invented” in the 16th century, when really these beliefs had always been part of the Church, but were dogmatically defined for the first time at Trent in response to Protestant heresies.

Hope this helps,
Paul
 
Actually it is exactly the opposite: the Protestants removed 7 books from the bible in the 1500s.

All Christian bibles prior to the Protestant rebellion contained the 7 deuterocanonical books and the deutercanons in Daniel and Esther. They are:

Tobit
Judith
Additions to Esther (Vulgate Esther 10:4-16:24, but see also Esther in the NAB)
Wisdom
Sirach, also called Ben Sira or Ecclesiasticus
Baruch, including the Letter of Jeremiah (Additions to Jeremiah in the Septuagint)
Additions to Daniel:
Song of the Three Children (Vulgate Daniel 3:24-90)
Story of Susanna (Vulgate Daniel 13, Septuagint prologue)
The Idol Bel and the Dragon (Vulgate Daniel 14, Septuagint epilogue)
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees

When Martin Luther removed these books in the 1500s, the Council of Trent found it necessary to dogmatically define these books as inspired, so that there would be no doubt within the Church. That’s where your friend is confused - just because something was dogmatically defined in the 1500s, that does not mean that the doctrine was “invented” at that time.

Paul
Actually, Paul, the removal of the DC books is later than Luther. Luther never removed them from his translation. I have a copy (not an original, of course 😃 ), which contains all the books except the ones the Orthodox claim as canon. This issue of the canonicity of the DC’s was debated long before Luther.
Jon
 
arther,

I personally have blocked junk mail on my email acount 😃

Maybe you should think about doing the same? No amount of dialogue is going to change this persons views on your faith. Face it, you are a pagan and an apostate idol worshipper to this person. Tell him to have a nice day and then you yourself continue serving the Lord.

God bless
 
arther,

I personally have blocked junk mail on my email acount 😃

Maybe you should think about doing the same? No amount of dialogue is going to change this persons views on your faith. Face it, you are a pagan and an apostate idol worshipper to this person. Tell him to have a nice day and then you yourself continue serving the Lord.

God bless
i so agree with you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top