I respectfully ask evangelical, protestant and sola scriptura proponents...

[CalChristian]

Do you believe that Jesus did not build a Church? You say start.

1. The issue here is the mandate that Protestant churches must prove what none of them claim and ergo The Catholic Church does NOT need to prove what it DOES claim for it itself. I’m trying to understand why that is.
2. I do not believe Jesus founded any Church (ie, a specific congregation and/or association of congregations). I DO believe Jesus founded his church. It’s just that has nothing to do with St. Boneventure Catholic Church of Ventura, CA or Shepherd of the Valley Lutheran Church of San Jose, CA or The Methodist Church or The Catholic Church or The United Pentecostal Church.

Now, what does this question have to do with the mandate that Protestant churches must prove that Jesus founded it when none of them so claim and this means that ergo The Catholic Church must not prove what it DOES claim?

Do you believe that Jesus cannot start a Church?

With God, ALL things are POSSIBLE. But that doesn’t mean that all things are true. COULD Jesus have founded The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints as it itself alone claims for it itself alone? OF COURSE! Does THAT mean ergo He did? No.

Do you believe that Protestants do not claim to be 1st century Christians?

I know of no Protestants that claim to have lived in the First Century. The oldest Protestant I personally know is 100 years old (this month). Thus, she would have missed the first century by a lot of years.

Do you believe that Protestants do not claim authority from Christ?

“Authority” is a word tossed about endlessly by Catholics and Mormons.
When they use it, it often has to do with unmitigated, unaccountable POWER.

Protestants are not apt to use the word a lot. And when they do, it’s generally ascribed to God, not self ascribing such to self. It’s a concept Protestants yeild to GOD - not ascribe to self.

In the rare cases when Protestants might use the term for humans (and that’s extremely rare) it usually has to do with accountable responsibilities or privileges. They may say, “WE have the ‘authority’ to preach the Gospel of Jesus” (although I’ve personally never heard a Protestant say that). It has to do with responsibilities that belong to all Christians because of something Jesus commanded rather than the unmitigated, unaccountable POWER to lord it over others as the Gentiles do or to be exempt from the issue of truth or to be seen essentially as God.

Do you believe that the Catholic Church is in the business of proving that it is the Church started/built by Christ?

No. It CLAIMS that it is. As does the OOC, EOC and LDS. IMO, it does so in an attempt to “justify” why it itself alone should be treated the exact opposite of all other church institutions, why all others are accountable but not it itself; and to “justify” all the unmitigated power it itself alone claims that it itself alone has.

Now, could we get to the issue here? Why is it that Protestant churches are mandated to prove something none of them claim and ergo The Catholic Church does NOT need to prove what it DOES claim?
.

 

[CalChristian]

Well, How could the CC tell Moses? Was the CC in existence at the time of Moses?

I think those are good and valid questions. MY position is that it IS possible to embrace Scripture as such without the CC doing or saying ANYTHING at all. I am thus in disagreement with the point made here: that it is only because of The Catholic Church that it is possible to know what is and is not Scripture and that everyone who has ever embraced Scriptrue as such has only The Catholic Church to thank for that and is ergo accepting the “Authority” of The Catholic Church over all things. I disagreed. It set off quite a firestorm when I did.

The question you have dodged is…why did the Hebrews believe Moses when Moses presented to them the stone tablets as the commands of God?

I don’t know. But I don’t think it had anything to do with The Catholic Church. And therein lies our (it seems sharp and emotional) disagreement.

Okay…now take yourself to the year…AD200 or so…without any bias, no preconcieved idea of what Scripture is…below is a partial list of early writings…tell me…which one is scripture and which one is not?

Yes, there were several books floating around. Some came to be seen as Scripture. There’s no evidence that they were so seen because The Catholic Church came back in time from the Council of Trent and all bowed to the Authority of such.

Many of the books you mention were regarded as Scripture LONG before the Council of Trent. Even long before the meeting at Hippo or Carthage or Rome. As my Catholic teachers taught me, “The Church AFFIRMED the canon, it didn’t create it.” I tend to agree since history seems to so powerfully confirm. But again, IF you are going to support the position of, “The Catholic Church decided what is and is not Scripture” then you need to document when and how The Catholic Church informed Moses that those two tablets were Scripture and when and how It informed the Hebrews at the Mountain that those two tablets were Scripture. Otherwise, the claim seems… impossible, as well as incredible. THAT is the point I made on that issue.

But of course, the issue of this thread is that it is a mandate that Protestant churches must prove a claim that none of them make and this means that The Catholic Church need NOT prove what it DOES claim. I’m asking: Why?

 

[CopticChristian]

1. The issue here is the mandate that Protestant churches must prove what none of them claim and ergo The Catholic Church does NOT need to prove what it DOES claim for it itself. I’m trying to understand why that is.
2. ** I do not believe Jesus founded any Church (ie, a specific congregation and/or association of congregations). I DO believe Jesus founded his church. ** It’s just that has nothing to do with St. Boneventure Catholic Church of Ventura, CA or Shepherd of the Valley Lutheran Church of San Jose, CA or The Methodist Church or The Catholic Church or The United Pentecostal Church.

**Now, what does this question have to do with the mandate **that Protestant churches must prove that Jesus founded it when none of them so claim and this means that ergo The Catholic Church must not prove what it DOES claim?

With God, ALL things are POSSIBLE. But that doesn’t mean that all things are true. COULD Jesus have founded The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints as it itself alone claims for it itself alone? OF COURSE! Does THAT mean ergo He did? No.

I know of no Protestants that claim to have lived in the First Century. The oldest Protestant I personally know is 100 years old (this month). Thus, she would have missed the first century by a lot of years.

“Authority” is a word tossed about endlessly by Catholics and Mormons.
When they use it, it often has to do with unmitigated, unaccountable POWER.

Protestants are not apt to use the word a lot. And when they do, it’s generally ascribed to God, not self ascribing such to self. It’s a concept Protestants yeild to GOD - not ascribe to self.

In the rare cases when Protestants might use the term for humans (and that’s extremely rare) it usually has to do with accountable responsibilities or privileges. They may say, “WE have the ‘authority’ to preach the Gospel of Jesus” (although I’ve personally never heard a Protestant say that). It has to do with responsibilities that belong to all Christians because of something Jesus commanded rather than the unmitigated, unaccountable POWER to lord it over others as the Gentiles do or to be exempt from the issue of truth or to be seen essentially as God.

No. It CLAIMS that it is. As does the OOC, EOC and LDS. IMO, it does so in an attempt to “justify” why it itself alone should be treated the exact opposite of all other church institutions, why all others are accountable but not it itself; and to “justify” all the unmitigated power it itself alone claims that it itself alone has.

Now, could we get to the issue here? Why is it that Protestant churches are mandated to prove something none of them claim and ergo The Catholic Church does NOT need to prove what it DOES claim?

.

I do not believe you are sincere. You keep formulating your thoughts concretely. Concrete thinking is seen in Schizophrenics. I don’t think you are Schizophrenic. Concrete thinking is not normal.

I do believe Jesus founded His Church. I do not believe Jesus founded any Church.

Reconcile these statements. These too are opposing thoughts. They are signs of a Schizophrenic mind. Stand up, sit down, confusion.

You have created a mandate. What is the reason for your mandate? You continually pose your posts with the same notion. You persistently and consistently insisted that the Catholic Church was a denomination over and over in spite of being advised otherwise. Your mind is not connecting with fact.

You do not dialogue. Is it because you lack capacity? Is it because you do not understand? Is it because you believe you have a point to prove?

Let’s try this. Protestants have no mandate to prove that they were founded by Jesus. No Protestant church was founded by Jesus. If any Protestant church claims to be founded by Jesus then the onus is on them to prove this. There is no mandate. Do you agree with this?

 

[CalChristian]

I do not believe you are sincere. You keep formulating your thoughts concretely. Concrete thinking is seen in Schizophrenics. I don’t think you are Schizophrenic. Concrete thinking is not normal.

Your PERSONAL feelings toward me are unfortunate but irrelevant.

I do believe Jesus founded His Church. I do not believe Jesus founded any Church.

Reconcile these statements. These too are opposing thoughts.

Only because you misquoted me.
And because you are imposing your assumptions on me.

Back to the issue before us. Why is it mandated that Protestant churches must prove a claim none of them make and this means that ergo The Catholic Church need NOT prove a claim it DOES make for it itself?

ou have created a mandate.

I’ve never created anything.

Protestants have no mandate to prove that they were founded by Jesus. No Protestant church was founded by Jesus. If any Protestant church claims to be founded by Jesus then the onus is on them to prove this. There is no mandate. Do you agree with this?

I’m not sure what you are saying, but yes - I do think that those making a claim have the onus of proving such. If you state (especially dogmatically) that there are 6.1 billion cute furry brown creatures living on the Moon of Endor, the burden of proof is on exclusively and totally on you. I don’t say there are. I don’t even say the Moon of Endor exists. Thus, I’m making no claims (dogmatically or even as a matter of opinion) and thus have nothing to prove. This is pretty elementary stuff.

You are correct. It seems NO Protestant church claims that Jesus specifically, directly and personally founded it. Thus, it seems odd to me that the mandate is given here that they must “prove” that each of them was so founded. It’s even more odd to me the point continues that this means The Catholic Church (which DOES claim that Jesus founded it - directly, personally, on Pentecost on 33 AD in Jerusalem - ergo does NOT need to prove it. I’ve asked why. No one has cared to answer.

 

[pablope]

I

think those are good and valid questions. MY position is that it IS possible to embrace Scripture as such without the CC doing or saying ANYTHING at all. I am thus in disagreement with the point made here: that it is only because of The Catholic Church that it is possible to know what is and is not Scripture and that everyone who has ever embraced Scriptrue as such has only The Catholic Church to thank for that and is ergo accepting the “Authority” of The Catholic Church over all things. I disagreed. It set off quite a firestorm when I did.

 

[CalChristian]

CalChristian;8559348:

I think those are good and valid questions. MY position is that it IS possible to embrace Scripture as such without the CC doing or saying ANYTHING at all. I am thus in disagreement with the point made here: that it is only because of The Catholic Church that it is possible to know what is and is not Scripture and that everyone who has ever embraced Scriptrue as such has only The Catholic Church to thank for that and is ergo accepting the “Authority” of The Catholic Church over all things. I disagreed. It set off quite a firestorm when I did.

It is a historical fact.

Okay. Then historically prove that the specific and only reason why Moses knew those two tablets were Scripture is because he was specifically and exclusively so informed by The Catholic Church.

The Hebrews believed Moses because they knew Moses was a “man of God”…a messenger

Perhaps…

So, how does that confirm that the way all know what is and is not Scripture is because The Catholic Church specifically, particularly and solely so informs them, and that when we accept Scripture as such we are acknowledging the “Authority” of The Catholic Church for all things?

You have not answered the question…was the CC in existence at the time of Moses?

What I have repeatedly posted is that Moses embraced Scripture as such MANY CENTURIES before The Catholic Church itself claims that itself came into existence, and MANY more centurires before the Council of Trent. I’m unclear as to why you are confused as to whether I think the CC existed in 1400 BC. I realized I haven’t directly answered it, but I regard it enough to say that the CC itself doesn’t claim that it was.

How do your comments support that it is mandated that all Protestant churches prove what none of them claim and this means that ergo The Catholic Church need not prove what it itself does claim for itself?

 

[Stephen168]

Cal’s point was that Jesus didn’t literally go out among the Jews and gentiles, after His ascension and preach and teach, and he’s right. He left us with His Catholic church leaders, in His stead, to do that, via the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

I didn’t think of it that way because historically it would be irrational to think Christ would start a Church on earth after he left the earth. The Church he started on earth, thru his Apostles, is the Catholic Church.

 

[Stephen168]

Okay. Then historically prove that the specific and only reason why Moses knew those two tablets were Scripture is because he was specifically and exclusively so informed by The Catholic Church.

Why would you believe in or care about the story of Moses?

 

[pablope]

Okay.

Then historically prove that the specific and only reason why Moses knew those two tablets were Scripture is because he was specifically and exclusively so informed by The Catholic Church.

You mean the Jews did not know? Why did they follow him out of Egypt?

So, how does that confirm that the way all know what is and is not Scripture is because The Catholic Church specifically, particularly and solely so informs them, and that when we accept Scripture as such we are acknowledging the “Authority” of The Catholic Church for all things?

Because the CC, here on earth, speaks for Christ…in terms of faith and morals.

we accept Scripture as such we are acknowledging the “Authority” of The Catholic Church for all things?

I see your dilemna. If the CC got it right with the Canon of the Bible…do you think the CC would fail in its teachings on Faith and Morals?

I think the question needs to be answered by you…why shouldn’t you?

What I have repeatedly posted is that Moses embraced Scripture as such MANY CENTURIES before The Catholic Church itself claims that itself came into existence, and MANY more centurires before the Council of Trent. I’m unclear as to why you are confused as to whether I think the CC existed in 1400 BC. I realized I haven’t directly answered it, but I regard it enough to say that the CC itself doesn’t claim that it was.

But what kind of scriptures did Moses have? Is the Moses’ understanding of Scripture the same as yours? Moses’ Scripture may just have been the stone tablet…but your scripture is different. You need to distinguish these understandings, which I am seeing from your posts…that you are not.

How do your comments support that it is mandated that all Protestant churches prove what none of them claim and this means that ergo The Catholic Church need not prove what it itself does claim for itself?

What are these claims?

[/QUOTE]

 

[CalChristian]

Why would you believe in or care about the story of Moses?

I responded to a specific point: That what is embrace as Scripture is specifically because of The Catholic Church and that means that since It has the “Authority” to determine what is and is not Scripture, it has all other Authority, too (or, because It is “right” about that, ergo It is right about everything). I disagreed. I noted that, IMO, people have often embraced Scripture as such without The Catholic Church having done or said ANYTHING in that regard, thus, it seems to ME, it is NOT necessary for The Catholic Church to determine what is and is not Scripture. Moses was offered as one of several examples.

Again, I’m just not following why that point means that all Protestant churches are mandated to prove a claim none of them make and ergo The Catholic Church does NOT need to prove a claim that it itself DOES make for it itself.

I hope that helps.

 

[CalChristian]

CalChristian;8559559:

Okay. So, how does that confirm that the way all know what is and is not Scripture is because The Catholic Church specifically, particularly and solely so informs them, and that when we accept Scripture as such we are acknowledging the “Authority” of The Catholic Church for all things?

Why do you keep going back…answer this first…was the CC in existence at the time of Moses?

Lost me…

You seemed to indicate that “it’s an historical fact” that the way people know what is and is not Scripture is specifically and solely because The Catholic Church so informs them. Thus my question and request.

I have no idea how your question is a reply to that. Sorry.

Moses told the Hebrews at the base of the mountain those were from God…“ORALLY”…and every Jew from them on believed so…because they knew Moses as a man of God.

Of course, the SCRIPTURES were not oral. But yes, Moses’ relating of how he received them was.

MY point is that Moses (and the Hebrews) embraced them as Scripture NOT specifically and particularly because The Catholic Church informed them that such is Scripture. However they so embraced, it had nothing to do with The Catholic Church. THUS my position: It IS possible to embrace Scripture as such with NO ROLE WHATSOEVER by The Catholic Church. And that one accepting Scripture as such does NOT mean that ERGO they must accept that The Catholic Church is Authoritative in all matters and right about all things. I’m NOT saying The Catholic Church is or is not all that, my singular point in this subset of this discussion is embracing Scripture as Scripture does not mandate accepting that it is so SOLEY because The Catholic Church says it is and does NOT mandate that ergo The Catholic Church is right in ALL things it may say and/or do.

I’m not sure why my view on that is so passionately rejected by the Catholics here (kind of surprises me, to be frank). But I’ve admitted, I’m not following what it the world it has to do with the issue of this thread, which is that all Protestant churches must prove what none of them claim and ergo The Catholic Church does NOT need to prove what it itself DOES claim. I don’t see the connection.

If the CC got it right with the Canon of the Bible…do you think the CC would fail in its teachings on Faith and Morals?

I never said the CC got anything right - or wrong. Nor is that the issue before us.

What I said I reject is your rubric that if one is right about ONE thing, ERGO they must be right about ALL things. President Obama said that there are 50 US States. Was he right about that? He also side that abortion on demand must be upheld as a fundamental human right. Was he right about that? Is it possible for one to be right about one thing but not about ALL things? It is possible for one to be right at some points yet also wrong at other points? IF so, then your premise is false.

 

[Stephen168]

I responded to a specific point: That what is embrace as Scripture is specifically because of The Catholic Church and that means that since It has the “Authority” to determine what is and is not Scripture, it has all other Authority, too (or, because It is “right” about that, ergo It is right about everything). I disagreed. I noted that, IMO, people have often embraced Scripture as such without The Catholic Church having done or said ANYTHING in that regard, thus, it seems to ME, it is NOT necessary for The Catholic Church to determine what is and is not Scripture. Moses was offered as one of several examples.

Christians believe the Book of Exodus is scripture and Aesop’s Fables are not scripture because of the canon of the Bible established by the Catholic Church.

You disagree but offer no proof. When you offer Moses (or the Boy who cried Wolf) as example(s) you are begging the question.

Again: How do you know that Exodus is scripture?

 

[JonNC]

**President Obama said that there are 50 US States. ** Was he right about that? He also side that abortion on demand must be upheld as a fundamental human right. Was he right about that? Is it possible for one to be right about one thing but not about ALL things? It is possible for one to be right at some points yet also wrong at other points? IF so, then your premise is false.
.

Actually, during the last campaign he said that there are 57 states.

Sorry, Cal, I couldn’t resist.

Jon

 

[CalChristian]

CalChristian:

I responded to a specific point: That what is embrace as Scripture is specifically because of The Catholic Church and that means that since It has the “Authority” to determine what is and is not Scripture, it has all other Authority, too (or, because It is “right” about that, ergo It is right about everything). I disagreed. I noted that, IMO, people have often embraced Scripture as such without The Catholic Church having done or said ANYTHING in that regard, thus, it seems to ME, it is NOT necessary for The Catholic Church to determine what is and is not Scripture. Moses was offered as one of several examples.

When you offer Moses (or the Boy who cried Wolf) as example(s) you are begging the question.

One that’s not been answered…

IF the only way to know what is and is not Scripture is for The Catholic Church to so inform, then how did Moses know that the two tablets were Scripture? How did the Hebrews he addressed?

And if the whole world just bows to the unmitigated authority of The Catholic Church in this regard, why do NO others agree with The Catholic Church on what is and is not Scripture, the determination of The Catholic Church as to what is and is not Scripture is accepted by none other than itself?

And why does the reality that The Catholic Church is irrelevant on this point prove that The Catholic Church ERGO has “Authority” in all areas, and that because The Catholic Church thinks itself right in this regard prove that it MUST be right about all things?

And what in the world does this have to do with the issue before us: namely, all Protestant churches must prove what none of them claims and therefore The Catholic Church does not need to claim what it itself does claim for it itself?.

 

[pablope]

Lost me…

Of course, the SCRIPTURES were not oral. But yes, Moses’ relating of how he received them was.

 

[Stephen168]

You disagree but offer no proof. When you offer Moses (or the Boy who cried Wolf) as example(s) you are begging the question.
CalChristian;8560638:

One that’s not been answered…

You should review “begging the question”. It is not a question to be answered; it is a statement to be proven.

Again: How do you know that Exodus is scripture?
CalChristian;8560638:

IF the only way to know what is and is not Scripture is for The Catholic Church to so inform, then how did Moses know that the two tablets were Scripture? How did the Hebrews he addressed?

By refusing to answer the question twice now, I must assume you know the only why a Christian knows which writings are scripture is due to the canon established by the Catholic Church.

 

[Stephen168]

Now…from this list…determine which should be in the NT or not? How will you know

Jesus loves me
This I know
for the Catholic Church
tells me so

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Okay. Then historically prove that the specific and only reason why Moses knew those two tablets were Scripture is because he was specifically and exclusively so informed by The Catholic Church.

Perhaps…

So, how does that confirm that the way all know what is and is not Scripture is because The Catholic Church specifically, particularly and solely so informs them, and that when we accept Scripture as such we are acknowledging the “Authority” of The Catholic Church for all things?

What I have repeatedly posted is that Moses embraced Scripture as such MANY CENTURIES before The Catholic Church itself claims that itself came into existence, and MANY more centurires before the Council of Trent. I’m unclear as to why you are confused as to whether I think the CC existed in 1400 BC. I realized I haven’t directly answered it, but I regard it enough to say that the CC itself doesn’t claim that it was.

How do your comments support that it is mandated that all Protestant churches prove what none of them claim and this means that ergo The Catholic Church need not prove what it itself does claim for itself?

.

 

[CalChristian]

CalChristian;8560284:

MY point is that Moses (and the Hebrews) embraced them as Scripture NOT specifically and particularly because The Catholic Church informed them that such is Scripture. However they so embraced, it had nothing to do with The Catholic Church. THUS my position: It IS possible to embrace Scripture as such with NO ROLE WHATSOEVER by The Catholic Church.

Well…demonstrate it to all to see…

Sure.

Did Moses accept that the two stone tablets he held were Scripture?
IF so, did he so accept specifically, particularly, solely, because The Catholic Church so informed him?

IF yes, please document. And reveal how The Catholic Church so informed him.
IF no, then you agree with me: it is NOT necessary for The Catholic Church to do ANYTHING AT ALL for people to accept Scripture as such.

Which is it, yes or no?

And please, how does this point reveal that it is mandated that Protestant church must prove claims none of them make and therefore it is NOT necessary for The Catholic Church to prove claims it itself DOES make for it itself?

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Lets turn down the heat a little.
Also, some of you need to fix your quote options and crop your posts better.