I would like to discuss the theology on Mary

[Simca]

I admit I don’t the specific verse that says this but I do know this if we are to believe that the bible is the holy word of God and that it is holy spirit inspired then why would we not base our beliefs on what it is written it? Because if we choose to believe something that is not in the bible then it is a man made belief and honestly made man beliefs are not very reliable as we have a very limited understanding compared to God.

Plus it’s very easy to believe a man made belief because we want to not because it’s true

This is an interesting example:

Matthew 2:23
“and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets, that he would be called a Nazarene.”

Absolutely nowhere in the Bible is there a prophecy that says, “He shall be called a Nazarene”. Experts and theologians have looked everywhere for a verse like this, and it does not exist. No where is this in scripture.

But still it must have been handed down from somewhere. And it here it is…an unsubstantiated statement in our Bible.

 

[AJB328]

I admit I don’t the specific verse that says this but I do know this if we are to believe that the bible is the holy word of God and that it is holy spirit inspired then why would we not base our beliefs on what it is written it? Because if we choose to believe something that is not in the bible then it is a man made belief and honestly made man beliefs are not very reliable as we have a very limited understanding compared to God.

Plus it’s very easy to believe a man made belief because we want to not because it’s true

I think if you put the Bible in the context of history it’s easier to accept Catholic teaching and authority.

We all know and accept the Jesus never wrote anything down, nowhere in scripture does it say he told the apostles to write anything down and with the exception of John (I’ll say Paul is a slightly different case) the NT is written from second hand sources (guided by the Holy Spirit and first hand sources) many years after the fact.

The first biblical cannon wasn’t formalized until the 4th century and it wasn’t until the printing press a thousand years later that it came into a price range that people could afford. I once read that the first bibles in today’s dollars would cost about $250,000

So the question is: What provision did Jesus leave behind for the transmission of the faith?

It can’t be the Bible because the gospels weren’t written until decades after, the official canon wasn’t formalized until centuries after and it wasn’t readily available until over a millennia later.

Our Lord didn’t leave behind a book, he left behind a teaching Church that was unified in its doctrines. A church whose Bishops and Priests wrote the NT, and years later exercised its authority to say which books of the bible were inspired.

There’s only one reason why all Christians believe the Bible is divinely inspired and that’s because the Authority of the Church our Lord left behind says it is.

 

[HelenRose]

I think if you put the Bible in the context of history it’s easier to accept Catholic teaching and authority.

We all know and accept the Jesus never wrote anything down, nowhere in scripture does it say he told the apostles to write anything down and with the exception of John (I’ll say Paul is a slightly different case) the NT is written from second hand sources (guided by the Holy Spirit and first hand sources) many years after the fact.

The first biblical cannon wasn’t formalized until the 4th century and it wasn’t until the printing press a thousand years later that it came into a price range that people could afford. I once read that the first bibles in today’s dollars would cost about $250,000

So the question is: What provision did Jesus leave behind for the transmission of the faith?

It can’t be the Bible because the gospels weren’t written until decades after, the official canon wasn’t formalized until centuries after and it wasn’t readily available until over a millennia later.

Our Lord didn’t leave behind a book, he left behind a teaching Church that was unified in its doctrines. A church whose Bishops and Priests wrote the NT, and years later exercised its authority to say which books of the bible were inspired.

There’s only one reason why all Christians believe the Bible is divinely inspired and that’s because the Authority of the Church our Lord left behind says it is.

When I was growing up as a Protestant, I asked many times how did the Bible come about? Who decided what books should be in the Bible? Who made the decisions. No one could or would give me the simple answer … The Catholic Church.

Even after I became I became a Catholic it was several years before the truth of that simple answer finally struck home.

The Bible came out of the authority of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church has the authority to rightly interpret the Holy Word of God.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

In my post no. 76 above, I included the following comment -

This is a correction and addition to my last post above.

…In another interview with a different Catholic exorcist based in Rome, which I have trouble finding on the net these days, he commented that the demons NEVER blaspheme Mary. He remarked “It’s an enigma!” They routinely blaspheme the victim, the exorcist, bystanders, Christ, and even God the Father, but NEVER Mary.

My understanding of that is that God has simply forbidden the devil to do so … “You can blaspheme anybody you like - even Me - I’m big enough to take it! And you’re going to pay for it the end anyway! But don’t you even THINK about blaspheming the woman I chose as the mother of my only Son!” …

I said I had trouble finding the interview, but I managed to finally locate it again. The following link refers -

signandsight.com/features/530.html

If you read it, the interview includes these paragraphs -

At the end, the priest says to the demon, “Go away! Disappear!” The demon usually answers, “No, I don’t want to.” It rebels and revolts. Sometimes it says “You have no power over me. You are nothing to me.” But after a while, its resistance weakens. This usually happens after the invocation of the Holy Mother, she’s very important for that. No demon ever dares to insult her during an exorcism. Never.

Does he have more respect for Mary than for God himself?

Apparently. Otherwise no holds are barred, and everyone is insulted: the priests, everyone present, the bishops, the Pope, even Jesus Christ.** But never the Virgin Mary. It’s an enigma. **

She’s more important in the divine economy than most Protestants think.

 

[multitude]

Otherwise no holds are barred, and everyone is insulted: the priests, everyone present, the bishops, the Pope, even Jesus Christ. But never the Virgin Mary. It’s an enigma.

I’m not sure if it’s as enigmatic as it seems if one really thinks about who the Blessed Virgin Mary really was. She’s the Mother of God! Some people would just rather cross the lines, but the demons will certainly let them dig their own graves. They will do well to observe this, and they ought to be very careful who they dismiss in this life.

 

[Wesrock]

The word of God is a precious and sacred thing, I have seen the power that it has I have seen how a single scripture can save a life. If you would rather rely on mans teachings than the words of God himself that is your choice but when you read the words in that book it’s as if God himself is speaking to you.

The Bible doesn’t point to itself. Your acceptance of the Bible only is a teaching of man (what else could it be, the Bible itself didn’t exist like it does until hundreds of years after Jesus and the Church). The Bible also doesn’t interpret itself. Saying so is also a teaching of man. You have the Bible because Jesus established his Church. The Bible is authoritative and profitable teaching, but it is not the only authoritative teachings left to us, if this is. What had been taught then we’d probably have 150,000 Christian denominations now. Instead we have 30,000 after only just 500 years of sola scriptura. Claiming that the Bible is the only sacred teaching left to us is is heresy and none of the earliest apostolic Churches believe that, Catholic or Orthodox. Sacred Tradition is not the teachings of man anymore than the Bible it, it is the direct teachings of Jesus and his Apostles, the teachings of God, passed down through the Church he established.

 

[Analytical]

The Bible doesn’t point to itself. Your acceptance of the Bible only is a teaching of man (what else could it be, the Bible itself didn’t exist like it does until hundreds of years after Jesus and the Church)

Are you saying this from your own viewpoint or reasoning… When you read a verse at 2 Timothy 3:16,17 which says - “All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.”
Would you still say the Bible itself can’t be used for teaching? It’s interesting that a man is fully competent when he uses scriptures to teach… The Bible is the Word of God what you saying is to accept the word of God is a teaching of man… really?

The Bible also doesn’t interpret itself. Saying so is also a teaching of man.

The Bible does interpret itself infact the Bible is it’s own best interpreter, there are many examples that shows that yet you won’t agree because many of your beliefs isn’t found in the Bible … Do not forget what Jesus told the pharisees when he said “You have made the word of God invalid because of your traditions” also 1 Corinthians 4:9 is clear “Do not go beyond the things that are written”…
the problem with an elevated status of Roman Catholic church tradition is that it results in various justifications of its non-biblical teachings such as what has been asked in this thread

You have the Bible because Jesus established his Church.

I believe the Author and Originator of the Bible is also its Preserver. He is the One who caused this statement to be recorded: “The word of our God endures forever.”—Isaiah 40:8.
I think if it’s God’s will for everyone to hear his word then he will be able to make sure the Bible is made and that his will is fulfilled, not any the church

The Bible is authoritative and profitable teaching, but it is not the only authoritative teachings left to us, if this is. What had been taught then we’d probably have 150,000 Christian denominations now. Instead we have 30,000 after only just 500 years of sola scriptura. Claiming that the Bible is the only sacred teaching left to us is is heresy and none of the earliest apostolic Churches believe that, Catholic or Orthodox. Sacred Tradition is not the teachings of man anymore than the Bible it, it is the direct teachings of Jesus and his Apostles, the teachings of God, passed down through the Church he established.

The problem I had was that Catholics always like to make it seem that the issue is tradition vs Scripture. No one denies that the 1st century Christians had regard for tradition or that we don’t appeal to tradition today. The issue is “Does our traditions contradict the Bible” and “Does tradition ever take precedence over the Bible.”
Nowhere does the Bible say that “tradition” is how you discern truth.

 

[HelenRose]

Are you saying this from your own viewpoint or reasoning… When you read a verse at 2 Timothy 3:16,17 which says - “All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.”
Would you still say the Bible itself can’t be used for teaching? It’s interesting that a man is fully competent when he uses scriptures to teach… The Bible is the Word of God what you saying is to accept the word of God is a teaching of man… really?

The Bible does interpret itself infact the Bible is it’s own best interpreter, there are many examples that shows that yet you won’t agree because many of your beliefs isn’t found in the Bible … Do not forget what Jesus told the pharisees when he said “You have made the word of God invalid because of your traditions” also 1 Corinthians 4:9 is clear “Do not go beyond the things that are written”…
the problem with an elevated status of Roman Catholic church tradition is that it results in various justifications of its non-biblical teachings such as what has been asked in this thread

I believe the Author and Originator of the Bible is also its Preserver. He is the One who caused this statement to be recorded: “The word of our God endures forever.”—Isaiah 40:8.
I think if it’s God’s will for everyone to hear his word then he will be able to make sure the Bible is made and that his will is fulfilled, not any the church

The problem I had was that Catholics always like to make it seem that the issue is tradition vs Scripture. No one denies that the 1st century Christians had regard for tradition or that we don’t appeal to tradition today. The issue is “Does our traditions contradict the Bible” and “Does tradition ever take precedence over the Bible.”
Nowhere does the Bible say that “tradition” is how you discern truth.

No where in the Bible does it say how many books are in the Bible either. It was Tradition that determined that. And it was Tradition that determined which books of many were chosen and which ones were rejected.

 

[multitude]

At the end, the priest says to the demon, “Go away! Disappear!” The demon usually answers, “No, I don’t want to.” It rebels and revolts. Sometimes it says “You have no power over me. You are nothing to me.” But after a while, its resistance weakens. This usually happens after the invocation of the Holy Mother, she’s very important for that. No demon ever dares to insult her during an exorcism. Never.

Does he have more respect for Mary than for God himself?

Apparently. Otherwise no holds are barred, and everyone is insulted: the priests, everyone present, the bishops, the Pope, even Jesus Christ. But never the Virgin Mary. It’s an enigma.

Mulling over this one again. There is definitely some sort of honor among demons, when it comes to the Blessed Virgin Mary. There is one person who is completely off limits. It’s not hard to imagine then, that the demons will have a particularly nasty spot prepared for those who crossed this line in their lives.

 

[Analytical]

No where in the Bible does it say how many books are in the Bible either. It was Tradition that determined that. And it was Tradition that determined which books of many were chosen and which ones were rejected.

Correct me if I’m wrong you basically saying that it was tradition that had the final say over God’s word and not God himself? The problem with that is that when the Catholic Church claims that it is the source of the sacred Scriptures, it is in effect placing itself above the Word of God by claiming that through its authority, we received the Word of God. Or do you not see it that way?

 

[AJB328]

Correct me if I’m wrong you basically saying that it was tradition that had the final say over God’s word and not God himself? The problem with that is that when the Catholic Church claims that it is the source of the sacred Scriptures, it is in effect placing itself above the Word of God by claiming that through its authority, we received the Word of God. Or do you not see it that way?

Hi Analytical, I think your view is really interesting, but it can’t help but raise some of the questions I brought up in an earlier post.

1. If the books of the new testament weren’t written until decades after our Lord’s ascension, and they weren’t deemed inspired until centuries after and the common person couldn’t own a copy until over a millenium after, can we really say that this was the method Christ left behind for the transmission of the faith?
2. On whose authority do we accept the Bible as sacred scripture? I could hand you a phone book and tell you it’s inspired by God, but since I have no authority, you’d laugh and call me crazy. So on whose authority do we accept it?

 

[JustaServant]

Analytical, your post is off topic, but I will answer anyway.
In order to properly understand Church history and Tradition, you must understand the world the people who wrote the various books collected into what we call ‘the Bible’. They cannot be looked at with 21st century, post Enlightenment, post printing press eyes.
In order to understand the ancient world, we have to step out of our comfort zones and walk in their shoes.
Many times that means accepting things our age rejects. Other times we can see how fragile our ‘modern’ society is. Without our gadgets and toys, we are no different than they were.
Even in parts of the world today family structure is the bedrock of the culture. Things like covenants still exist in what we so arrogantly call the ‘third world’. African and Native American tribes had no written language, yet they were steeped in the history of their culture far more than our so-called ‘enlightened’ society.
Not everything was ‘on paper’.
It was timely and sometimes expensive to do that. It was a society far more steeped in oral tradition, and that included pagan societies as well. They had great auditory skills in those days. Communication was by listening. Even when something was put on paper, it was read ALOUD. Reading to oneself was unknown. Most people could not read. That did not mean they were unintelligent. Literacy and intelligence are not the same thing.
Repetition helped people remember. Look up some time the story of how Isaac got his wife in Genesis. The story is repeated three times. Many people in the ancient world had, what we would consider, great memory skills.
Many Protestants assume if it is not in written form (a concept that did not arise until the post-printing press days of the Enlightenment) it must be discarded. Our ancestors would have laughed themselves silly at such a thought. Civilizations have existed for years on oral history alone. Many ancient civilizations have no written history, all they have is oral. So…should we discard what they say because no one tribe decided to sit down and write a book? Jesus did not write a book, He promised the Holy Spirit would bring all things to our remembrance. He did, and*** in due time***, the Apostles wrote it down.

 

[HelenRose]

Correct me if I’m wrong you basically saying that it was tradition that had the final say over God’s word and not God himself? The problem with that is that when the Catholic Church claims that it is the source of the sacred Scriptures, it is in effect placing itself above the Word of God by claiming that through its authority, we received the Word of God. Or do you not see it that way?

The writers inspired by God are the source of the writings and letters. It was the Church leaders working with the Holy Spirit, within the spoken Tradition passed on by the apostles to their followers, who were able to rightly and with authority say which of the many available writings and letters were the true Word of God.

It was the authority of the Church that was responsible for recognizing and compiling the writings that we now know as the Bible. It is the authority of the Church, working with both the Written Word of God with the Tradition passed on by the apostles that guides us in interpreting the Bible correctly.

I am trying to picture how you envision the Bible came to us in it’s present form. Did someone find the Bible fully formed on some table with the words written above it in gold letters declaring that this is the complete word of God? I know that sounds a bit flippant, but I do wonder how you understand the steps by which the Bible became the Book of a certain set of writings and letters.

 

[johnnyc176]

Are you saying this from your own viewpoint or reasoning… When you read a verse at 2 Timothy 3:16,17 which says - “All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.”

My Bible says this…

16 All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

Then, of course, earlier in Scripture we have this…

1 Timothy 3:15… if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

 

[friardchips]

(Luke 1:46-55) The Magnificat

My soul magnifies the Lord,
and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
for he has regarded the low estate of his handmaiden.
For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed;
for he who is mighty has done great things for me,
and holy is his name.
And his mercy is on those who fear him
from generation to generation.
He has shown strength with his arm,
he has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts,
he has put down the mighty from their thrones,
and exalted those of low degree;
he has filled the hungry with good things,
and the rich he has sent empty away.
He has helped his servant Israel,
in remembrance of his mercy,
as he spoke to our fathers,
to Abraham and to his posterity for ever.

 

[Analytical]

1. If the books of the new testament weren’t written until decades after our Lord’s ascension, and they weren’t deemed inspired until centuries after and the common person couldn’t own a copy until over a millenium after, can we really say that this was the method Christ left behind for the transmission of the faith?

The evidence is clear that all the Sacred Scriptures, as progressively added to the Bible canon, were consistently recognized by God’s servants, including Jesus and his apostles, as inspired. By “inspiration” is meant, not a mere heightening of the intellect and emotions to a higher degree of accomplishment or sensitivity (as is often said of secular artists or poets), but the production of writings that are inerrant and that have the same authority as if written by God himself. For this reason the prophets who contributed to the writing of the Hebrew Scriptures ceaselessly credited their messages to God, with the pronouncement, “This is what God has said,” here’s a few scriptures to check (Isa 37:33; Jer 2:2; Na 1:12) Even Jesus and his apostles confidently quoted the Hebrew Scriptures as God’s own word spoken through the assigned writers, hence as certain of fulfillment and as the final authority in any controversy. (Mt 4:4-10; 19:3-6; Lu 24:44-48; Joh 13:18; Ac 13:33-35; 1Co 15:3, 4; 1Pe 1:16; 2:6-9) They contained “the sacred pronouncements of God.” (Ro 3:1, 2; Heb 5:12)
Showing his full faith in the inerrancy of the Sacred Writings, Jesus said that “the Scripture cannot be nullified” (Joh 10:34, 35) and that “sooner would heaven and earth pass away than for one smallest letter or one particle of a letter to pass away from the Law by any means and not all things take place.” (Mt 5:18) He told the Sadducees that they were in error regarding the resurrection because “you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God.” (Mt 22:29-32; Mr 12:24) He was willing to submit to arrest and death itself because of knowing that this was in fulfillment of the written Word of God, the Sacred Scriptures.—Mt 26:54; Mr 14:27, 49.
These statements, of course, apply to the pre-Christian Hebrew Scriptures. That the Christian Greek Scriptures were likewise presented and accepted as inspired is also clear please read these verses (1Co 14:37; Ga 1:8, 11, 12; 1Th 2:13), also the apostle Peter in one statement including Paul’s letters with the rest of the Scriptures. (2Pe 3:15, 16) Thus the entire body of the Scriptures comprise the unified and harmonious written Word of God.—Eph 6:17

1. On whose authority do we accept the Bible as sacred scripture? I could hand you a phone book and tell you it’s inspired by God, but since I have no authority, you’d laugh and call me crazy. So on whose authority do we accept it?

God’s own purpose in preparing the Sacred Scriptures and the inspired declaration that “the saying of God endures forever” give assurance that God has preserved the internal integrity of the Scriptures through the centuries.—1Pe 1:25. Absolute inerrancy is therefore to be attributed to the written Word of God. With good reason, then, John urged Christians to “test the inspired expressions to see whether they originate with God.” (1Jo 4:1-3; compare Re 22:6.)
We can see how harmonious the Bible is in that it does not contradict itself in anyway even though it was written over a period of 1600 years from 44 different men living in different periods of time. No other book can do that. All glory should go to God for its under his authority that his will takes place an things goes the way he wants it to. Not a church

 

[Analytical]

Many Protestants assume if it is not in written form (a concept that did not arise until the post-printing press days of the Enlightenment) it must be discarded. Our ancestors would have laughed themselves silly at such a thought. Civilizations have existed for years on oral history alone. Many ancient civilizations have no written history, all they have is oral. So…should we discard what they say because no one tribe decided to sit down and write a book? Jesus did not write a book, He promised the Holy Spirit would bring all things to our remembrance. He did, and*** in due time***, the Apostles wrote it down.

I can’t disagree with you we must consider the time we live in. I can’t quote every verse for you so I would encourage you to look up the scripture given as proof for what I’m saying. As the apostle states, God spoke “in many ways” to his servants in pre-Christian times. (Heb 1:1, 2) In at least one case, that of the Ten Commandments, or Decalogue, the information was divinely supplied in written form, merely requiring copying into the scrolls or other material used by Moses. (Ex 31:18; De 10:1-5) In other cases, information was transmitted by verbal dictation, word for word. When presenting the large body of laws and statutes of God’s covenant with Israel, God instructed Moses: “Write down for yourself these words.” (Ex 34:27) The prophets also were often given specific messages to deliver, and these were then recorded, forming part of the Scriptures.—1Ki 22:14; Jer 1:7; 2:1; 11:1-5; Eze 3:4; 11:5.
Among still other methods used for conveying information to the Bible writers were dreams and visions. Dreams, or night visions as they were sometimes called, evidently superimposed a picture of God’s message or purpose on the mind of the sleeping person. (Da 2:19; 7:1) Visions given while the person was conscious were an even more frequently used vehicle of communication of God’s thoughts to the mind of the writer, the revelation being impressed pictorially upon the conscious mind. (Eze 1:1; Da 8:1; Re 9:17) Some visions were received when the person had fallen into a trance. Though conscious, the person apparently was so absorbed by the vision received during the trance as to be oblivious to all else around him.—Ac 10:9-17; 11:5-10; 22:17-21

Angelic messengers were used on many occasions to transmit the divine messages. (Heb 2:2) Such messengers played a larger part in the transmission of information than is at times apparent. Thus, whereas the Law given to Moses is presented as spoken by God, both Stephen and Paul show that God used his angels in transmitting that legal code. (Ac 7:53; Ga 3:19) Since the angels spoke in God’s name, the message they presented could therefore properly be called “the word of God.”—Ge 22:11, 12, 15-18; Zec 1:7, 9.
No matter what the particular means employed for the transmission of the messages, all parts of the Scriptures would be of the same quality, all of them being inspired, or “God-breathed.”
Today many of those old ways God used to communicate to his people does not exist anymore, today God speaks to us through his written word the Bible on that we both will agree I’m sure

 

[Analytical]

My Bible says this…
1 Timothy 3:15… if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

Some bibles says “A Pillar and Support of the Truth.” The Christian congregation serves as “a pillar and support of the truth,” preserving the purity of the truth and defending and upholding it. (1Ti 3:15) For this reason it is especially important that those entrusted with oversight in the congregation be able to handle “the word of the truth” aright. Proper use of God’s Word enables them to combat false teaching in the congregation, instructing “those not favorably disposed; as perhaps God may give them repentance leading to an accurate knowledge of truth.” (2Ti 2:15-18, 25; compare 2Ti 3:6-8; Jas 5:13-20.)
That’s a good verse since it’s very important that a church supports the truth which is only found in God’s word.

 

[JustaServant]

I can’t disagree with you we must consider the time we live in. I can’t quote every verse for you so I would encourage you to look up the scripture given as proof for what I’m saying. As the apostle states, God spoke “in many ways” to his servants in pre-Christian times. (Heb 1:1, 2) In at least one case, that of the Ten Commandments, or Decalogue, the information was divinely supplied in written form, merely requiring copying into the scrolls or other material used by Moses. (Ex 31:18; De 10:1-5) In other cases, information was transmitted by verbal dictation, word for word. When presenting the large body of laws and statutes of God’s covenant with Israel, God instructed Moses: “Write down for yourself these words.” (Ex 34:27) The prophets also were often given specific messages to deliver, and these were then recorded, forming part of the Scriptures.—1Ki 22:14; Jer 1:7; 2:1; 11:1-5; Eze 3:4; 11:5.
Among still other methods used for conveying information to the Bible writers were dreams and visions. Dreams, or night visions as they were sometimes called, evidently superimposed a picture of God’s message or purpose on the mind of the sleeping person. (Da 2:19; 7:1) Visions given while the person was conscious were an even more frequently used vehicle of communication of God’s thoughts to the mind of the writer, the revelation being impressed pictorially upon the conscious mind. (Eze 1:1; Da 8:1; Re 9:17) Some visions were received when the person had fallen into a trance. Though conscious, the person apparently was so absorbed by the vision received during the trance as to be oblivious to all else around him.—Ac 10:9-17; 11:5-10; 22:17-21

Angelic messengers were used on many occasions to transmit the divine messages. (Heb 2:2) Such messengers played a larger part in the transmission of information than is at times apparent. Thus, whereas the Law given to Moses is presented as spoken by God, both Stephen and Paul show that God used his angels in transmitting that legal code. (Ac 7:53; Ga 3:19) Since the angels spoke in God’s name, the message they presented could therefore properly be called “the word of God.”—Ge 22:11, 12, 15-18; Zec 1:7, 9.
No matter what the particular means employed for the transmission of the messages, all parts of the Scriptures would be of the same quality, all of them being inspired, or “God-breathed.”
Today many of those old ways God used to communicate to his people does not exist anymore, today God speaks to us through his written word the Bible on that we both will agree I’m sure

Nice cut and paste from the Watchtower online library:
wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200002178?q=Bible&p=par

Now, would you mind answering in your OWN words?

 

[Simca]

Some bibles says “A Pillar and Support of the Truth.” The Christian congregation serves as “a pillar and support of the truth,” preserving the purity of the truth and defending and upholding it. (1Ti 3:15) For this reason it is especially important that those entrusted with oversight in the congregation be able to handle “the word of the truth” aright. Proper use of God’s Word enables them to combat false teaching in the congregation, instructing “those not favorably disposed; as perhaps God may give them repentance leading to an accurate knowledge of truth.” (2Ti 2:15-18, 25; compare 2Ti 3:6-8; Jas 5:13-20.)
That’s a good verse since it’s very important that a church supports the truth which is only found in God’s word.

Yes, you are right… it is very important to be able to handle and interpret the word of God correctly. That is why the Catholic Church has one Ruling Body (Magisterium,) which, throughout the millennia has, through prayer and supplication to God’s Spirit for understanding, one uniform interpretation of God’s Word, and this teaching is upheld and taught in every Catholic church throughout the world. It is not left up to various leaders to interpret individual Biblical verses and teach which ever interpretation seems right to them.

The Church wouldn’t teach anything that is against the Word of God. If the Bible says one thing, the Church wouldn’t say the opposite…it never has. But even the Bible says that the Books themselves could not contain all the miracles of Christ and all of His words. So if something has been passed down through the ages, are we to say it is definitely not true just because it’s not in the Bible?

St. Paul was a Pharisee, and one of the Pharisee’s beliefs was that we are to believe both the traditions we are taught AND the Word of God as recorded in the Scripture. This was another main difference between the Pharisees and Sadducees… The Sadducees said that it is only the written word we are to believe, but being a Pharisee, Paul refutes this belief when he says: So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter. (II Thessalonians 2:15) It was only later, as others have mentioned, that the New Testament was put together as a collective work.