If 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is teaching Sola Scriptura today...

[Cat_Herder]

In what way, if scripture is of the Holy Spirit?

Jon

But so is Tradition (2 Thess. 2:15) and the Magisterium (Lk 10:16).

 

[Cat_Herder]

Paul was never claiming two separate traditions or teachings; if you look at what the passage actually says; he is describing the mode of delivery of the gospel and the expected conduct of the Christian and the warnings to unbelievers. Either by oral teaching or by letter.

It is not two different teachings. A modern day example would be taking a class in algebra from the same professor; one student is in the classroom face to face with the professor, while the other student is taking the same class with the same professor online; the material is the same, but the mode of delivery is different.

It really is that simple and straight-forward.

But the Bible expressly tells us that this is NOT what happened.

[BIBLEDRB]1 Cor 11:2[/BIBLEDRB]

This is Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians. Does it contain everything that he told the Corinthians when he visited them? How do you know that except by a tradition of men?

[BIBLEDRB]2 Tim 2:2[/BIBLEDRB]

Not what was written. What was heard.

[BIBLEDRB]Rom 10:17[/BIBLEDRB]

Again… not what was written. What was heard. Why?

[BIBLEDRB]Jn 21:25[/BIBLEDRB]

Not everything Jesus taught is in the Bible and the Bible says so; are you seriously arguing that we are not supposed to know everything that Jesus taught? Did He not say…

[BIBLEDRB]Mk 13:31[/BIBLEDRB]

If you’re right, then His words not written in the Bible passed away…

 

[JonNC]

But so is Tradition (2 Thess. 2:15) and the Magisterium (Lk 10:16).

Thanks for your response. As you can imagine, I see both of these as a great leap to the conclusion the CC draws, at least since the Great Schism.

Jon

 

[Cat_Herder]

Thanks for your response. As you can imagine, I see both of these as a great leap to the conclusion the CC draws, at least since the Great Schism.

Jon

Oh, I don’t know about that. Jesus never said that the Eucharist “contains” His body but you do hold to the Sacramental Union as being instituted by God.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

You claimed that Tradition conflicts with Scripture. It just ain’t so.

No I didn’t. Read it again Cat

:
Originally Posted by Richard Kastner
If however you are saying that Paul preached something other than the gospel message and that the CC is somehow the only one that is privy to that information then we do have a problem, because Paul himself says Gal.1: 8But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
And the gospel he preached was Jesus Christ and him crucified. 1Cor.2:2

What I am saying is that the so called oral tradition and Pauls epistles are one and the same.

The contents of the Bible are irrelevant? Wow. So the Qur’an, and the Book of Mormon are the Word of God? Sorry dude but I’m not with you on that.

Again that is not what I said. You really need to read these posts a little more carefully. What you said “Who decided the list and when?” What I said was This is irrelavant. In other words who decided the list of the bible and when is irrelavant. Not the contents of the bible.

You are if you say that only the Bible is the Word of God.

Are you saying that the bible is not the word of God?

But it looks like you caught the error and now understand that Jesus and only He is the complete Word of God. Now the problem you face is that the Bible says that not everything Jesus and His Apostles did or said is in the Bible. Since Jesus is the Word of God, aren’t these words also the Word of God? And isn’t it then plausible that the Catholic Church, which has been around for 2000 years, has in fact maintained in her practices what they taught but did not write down?

Why would you think that the words that were not contained in the bible were any different than the gospel message? Especially since Paul says Gal1: 8But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

It’s in the Bible. So the Bible is not true?

:
As a Person Jesus also:

Spoke many things not written in the Scriptures (John 20:30, 21:25)
Breathed upon the Apostles and gave them His authority through the Holy Spirit (John 20:22)
Promised to remain with the Church for all time (Mt 28:20)

These things really happened, are acts of God and are mentioned in the Bible, though every outcome of these events is not written in the Bible (which says so). If you hold to Sola Scriptura you must deny all of the above, and in so doing you deny the veracity of Scripture itself. Sola Scriptura is a self-contradictory and bankrupt tradition of men.

I don’t know the bible as well as I should, but I’m pretty sure the statement you make here is NOT in it. The fact that everything that Jesus said or did is not in the bible does not make the things that are in it insufficient. The fact that Jesus breathed on His apostles and gave them His Spirit does not nullify the FACT that everything we need to gain eternal life is contained in the pages of the bible. Because Jesus promised to be with His church until the end of time does not negate SS. So your statement is completely false and it is NOT in the bible.

Jesus said:

[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 28:19[/BIBLEDRB]

Why do you think that His commandments have to be in the Bible to be authoritative, if you know that Jesus, not the Bible, is the complete Word of God?

Why would you go outside the bible?

[BIBLEDRB]Phil 2:2[/BIBLEDRB]

Amen

 

[JonNC]

Oh, I don’t know about that. Jesus never said that the Eucharist “contains” His body but you do hold to the Sacramental Union as being instituted by God.

No, I believe what He said: This IS my body. From the website you posted:

… we do not make Christ’s body out of the bread … Nor do we say that his body comes into existence out of the bread . We say that his body, which long ago was made and came into existence, is present when we say, “This is my body.” For Christ commands us to say not, “Let this become my body,” or, “Make my body there,” but, "This is my body

And I could ask, where does He say it “becomes” my body. But on this issue, like many others, I see our human interpretations and explanations - Sacramental Union and Transubstantiation in this case - as being a distinction without a difference.

Jon

 

[Cat_Herder]

No, I believe what He said: This IS my body. From the website you posted:
…
And I could ask, where does He say it “becomes” my body.

[BIBLEDRB]1 Corinthians 10:16[/BIBLEDRB]

You might say “well, it still says bread.” The Scriptures often call things by their appearance. Aaron’s staff and the blind man come to mind.
[BIBLEDRB]Exodus 7:10-12[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]John 9:17[/BIBLEDRB]
Aaron’s staff was not a staff anymore nor was the blind man blind. Nor is the Eucharist bread or wine after the consecration.

If you want to discuss the Real Presence further, let’s settle that outside.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Paul was never claiming two separate traditions or teachings; if you look at what the passage actually says; he is describing the mode of delivery of the gospel and the expected conduct of the Christian and the warnings to unbelievers. Either by oral teaching or by letter.

It is not two different teachings. A modern day example would be taking a class in algebra from the same professor; one student is in the classroom face to face with the professor, while the other student is taking the same class with the same professor online; the material is the same, but the mode of delivery is different.

It really is that simple and straight-forward. If there were other doctrines, then we were not meant to know them because they were not given. For example, we know Paul wrote at least one other and perhaps two other letter to the Corinthian church, but whatever they contained we could only speculate on, but we do know that God did not intend for us to have them or else we would and w/out error or contradiction.

and that is why Jesus built His Church, One Church, so this kind of squables would not happened. the CC doesnt have to speculate anything. God never intended for anyone outside His Church to teach His Word to anyone. Sacred Scriptures was never meant to be in the hands of the laity. today, Scriptures have almost lost its Sacredness because people have been going around quoting Scriptures without the True knowledge of God and drawing ridicule to God due to the dissecration of Scriptures. It has caused great loss of souls because of some have decided that they are going to teach anyway no matter what in disobedience to God. but our Lord warned His people that prophets and false teachers would come and deceive many. what a better time to see this prophecy coming true than today.

 

[Cat_Herder]

What I am saying is that the so called oral tradition and Pauls epistles are one and the same.

It’s not so-called; the Bible says it exists and you are unable to deal with this, so you presuppose without Scripture or evidence that the Bible contains all of the oral tradition.

What you said “Who decided the list and when?” What I said was This is irrelavant. In other words who decided the list of the bible and when is irrelavant. Not the contents of the bible.

Again, you are presupposing the contents of the Bible.

Presupposition is not evidence nor a valid source of truth. It is circular reasoning, and a crutch that John Calvin’s heirs came up with to explain how they could be Christians and have nothing to do with the Catholic Church which determined the Bible’s contents, nor with the various proofs for the existence of God which the Church produced over the years. Most critically to your argument: IT IS NOT SCRIPTURE.

Are you saying that the bible is not the word of God?

You are not reading my posts. Here it is again:

Jesus Christ, not the Bible, is the Word of God (John 1)
The Bible is, however, inspired by God and is thus the Written Word of God
However, the Bible is not Jesus Christ
Therefore the Bible is not the complete Word of God

Why would you think that the words that were not contained in the bible were any different than the gospel message? Especially since Paul says Gal1: 8But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

Why are there four Gospels if they are not opposed to one another? Because they are complementary. So are Scripture and Tradition.

I don’t know the bible as well as I should, but I’m pretty sure the statement you make here is NOT in it.

As a Person Jesus also:
Spoke many things not written in the Scriptures
[BIBLEDRB]John 20:30[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]John 21:25[/BIBLEDRB]
Breathed upon the Apostles and gave them His authority through the Holy Spirit
[BIBLEDRB]John 20:22[/BIBLEDRB]
Promised to remain with the Church for all time
[BIBLEDRB]Mt 28:20[/BIBLEDRB]

The fact that everything that Jesus said or did is not in the bible does not make the things that are in it insufficient. The fact that Jesus breathed on His apostles and gave them His Spirit does not nullify the FACT …

You mean the tradition of men that makes void the above Scriptures.

Why would you go outside the bible?

The laws of electromagnetism aren’t in the Bible, yet they are true—and authored by God.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Before I start, can someone please teach me to use the multiquote button?I am going to put numbers before the paragraph for simplicity.

1. Are you saying that the bible is not the word of God?
2. Why would you think that the words that were not contained in the bible were any different than the gospel message? Especially since Paul says Gal1: 8But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
3. I don’t know the bible as well as I should, but I’m pretty sure the statement you make here is NOT in it. The fact that everything that Jesus said or did is not in the bible does not make the things that are in it insufficient. The fact that Jesus breathed on His apostles and gave them His Spirit does not nullify the FACT that everything we need to gain eternal life is contained in the pages of the bible. Because Jesus promised to be with His church until the end of time does not negate SS. So your statement is completely false and it is NOT in the bible.
4. Why would you go outside the bible?

Amen

1. No… Cat was saying that the Bible is not the Word of God in its fullest. It is only a part of the Ultimate Picture.
2. To answer the question, I have no idea. Whoever believes that is certainly not a Catholic. Anyway, we do not believe that the overall message is different. But we believe that there is more to the gospel than is written. John himself says this at the end of his Gospel. Amen to the Galatians 1:8. But notice how he says “any other gospel” but nothing in relation to writing. The Gospel can be written or spoken. The Gospels we have actually came from the spoken Tradition along with the rest of the Bible.
3. This is not a “FACT”. The Bible is certainly sufficient and useful for eternal life but not EVERYTHING… That statement is a major claim that I personally have no read on. If a Catholic reads this and sees if I am wrong, please correct me. Who cares if it is sufficient, anyway? A passing grade is sufficient but nobody who really cares wants sufficient. They want to to excel. And you are right that Jesus’ promise does not negate Sola Scriptura. There are other major reasons. And your statement about Cat’s statement being completely false and “NOT in the bible” is completely false.
4. Because the Bible itself is the not entire Word of God. It even says so. St. Paul even uses a reference to a non-biblical poet (maybe even pagan, I forgot) in Acts!

Here is a faith-illumined extra-biblical reason why we believe the Bible is not entire part of the Picture. Clearly, Bible verses do not persuade you. Jesus is the Word spoken at the Creation. Agreed? Jesus spoke and wrote (only once though) while He was walking in this world for about 33 years. Agreed? There are only 4 Gospels (not including the apocryphal). 4 books could not contain what I have done for 25 years, much less contain that of God Himself. Anyway, the Bible was written because of the spoken Tradition. Guess what? No spoken, no written. I will not use the argument that Christians did not have the Bible because that will clearly not work either. All beliefs aside. Whether or not you believe the spoken Word exists. I want you to answer this question: If God can protect the written word from error, would He be able to protect the spoken word from error? If no, why not? If yes, why NOT believe it when the Bible itself indicates that it cannot contain “EVERYTHING”, which you claim? Read the last chapter of John for affirmation of the FACT that it cannot contain everything. You might say that John was only talking about the Gospels. That may be the case, BUT if not everything is in the Gospels, then certainly not everything is in the Bible. My argument rests under the consideration that the Gospels are part of the Bible. And if not everything is in one part of the Bible, then why believe that everything is in the other parts?

This is why we claim to be Catholic, that is, have the fullness of the Truth.

Amen to your Amen!

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Before I start, can someone please teach me to use the multiquote button?I am going to put numbers before the paragraph for simplicity.

1. No… Cat was saying that the Bible is not the Word of God in its fullest. It is only a part of the Ultimate Picture.
2. To answer the question, I have no idea. Whoever believes that is certainly not a Catholic. Anyway, we do not believe that the overall message is different. But we believe that there is more to the gospel than is written. John himself says this at the end of his Gospel. Amen to the Galatians 1:8. But notice how he says “any other gospel” but nothing in relation to writing. The Gospel can be written or spoken. The Gospels we have actually came from the spoken Tradition along with the rest of the Bible.

So, let me get this straight. You are saying that we have the Gospel message in the bible and that message is Jesus Christ and Him crucified for our sins, that we can attain eternal life through faith in His sacrifice, but then you say that this isn’t enough, that there is something more that is only contained in the “oral tradition” and only the CC is privy to this information. Is this about right?

1. This is not a “FACT”. The Bible is certainly sufficient and useful for eternal life but not EVERYTHING… That statement is a major claim that I personally have no read on. If a Catholic reads this and sees if I am wrong, please correct me. Who cares if it is sufficient, anyway? A passing grade is sufficient but nobody who really cares wants sufficient. They want to to excel. And you are right that Jesus’ promise does not negate Sola Scriptura. There are other major reasons. And your statement about Cat’s statement being completely false and “NOT in the bible” is completely false.

Ok, you have to show me where this statement

These things really happened, are acts of God and are mentioned in the Bible, though every outcome of these events is not written in the Bible (which says so). If you hold to Sola Scriptura you must deny all of the above, and in so doing you deny the veracity of Scripture itself. Sola Scriptura is a self-contradictory and bankrupt tradition of men.

is in the bible

1. Because the Bible itself is the not entire Word of God. It even says so. St. Paul even uses a reference to a non-biblical poet (maybe even pagan, I forgot) in Acts!

Here is a faith-illumined extra-biblical reason why we believe the Bible is not entire part of the Picture. Clearly, Bible verses do not persuade you. Jesus is the Word spoken at the Creation. Agreed? Jesus spoke and wrote (only once though) while He was walking in this world for about 33 years. Agreed? There are only 4 Gospels (not including the apocryphal). 4 books could not contain what I have done for 25 years, much less contain that of God Himself. Anyway, the Bible was written because of the spoken Tradition. Guess what? No spoken, no written. I will not use the argument that Christians did not have the Bible because that will clearly not work either. All beliefs aside. Whether or not you believe the spoken Word exists. I want you to answer this question: If God can protect the written word from error, would He be able to protect the spoken word from error? If no, why not? If yes, why NOT believe it when the Bible itself indicates that it cannot contain “EVERYTHING”, which you claim? Read the last chapter of John for affirmation of the FACT that it cannot contain everything. You might say that John was only talking about the Gospels. That may be the case, BUT if not everything is in the Gospels, then certainly not everything is in the Bible. My argument rests under the consideration that the Gospels are part of the Bible. And if not everything is in one part of the Bible, then why believe that everything is in the other parts?

This is why we claim to be Catholic, that is, have the fullness of the Truth.

Amen to your Amen!

Ok, I’m going back to my questions. Here’s 2Tim.3:15-17
15And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

If as it says here that scripture is able to make us wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. And it is inspired by God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. What more do we need? You say “It is only a part of the Ultimate Picture.” So you must think that there is some part of the gospel message that is more important than this that is only in the “oral tradition.” What would that be Gregg?

 

[Cat_Herder]

So, let me get this straight. You are saying that we have the Gospel message in the bible and that message is Jesus Christ and Him crucified for our sins, that we can attain eternal life through faith in His sacrifice, but then you say that this isn’t enough, that there is something more that is only contained in the “oral tradition” and only the CC is privy to this information. Is this about right?

Not quite, as the Orthodox Churches have this “information” as well. Also, God will not hold responsible a Protestant who is ignorant of the need to become Catholic to partake of the complete Truth.

Please read the Catechism.

Ok, you have to show me where this statement is in the bible

I have done so three times. Again: John 20:30, John 21:25, John 20:22-23, Mt 28:20.

Ok, I’m going back to my questions. Here’s 2Tim.3:15-17
15And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

If as it says here that scripture is able to** make us wise unto salvation** through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

Which is the cause of salvation, “being wise onto salvation” or “faith which is in Christ Jesus?” If the latter, then who needs the Bible?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Richard,

Is it that you are not reading the answers that I and others have given you. Merely repeating the same question with the same scriptural quote from 2Tim - in the face of repeated responses - has become tedious.

Surely, you can actually respond to what you have already been told.

I’m waiting.

God bless

So, let me get this straight. You are saying that we have the Gospel message in the bible and that message is Jesus Christ and Him crucified for our sins, that we can attain eternal life through faith in His sacrifice, but then you say that this isn’t enough, that there is something more that is only contained in the “oral tradition” and only the CC is privy to this information. Is this about right?

Ok, you have to show me where this statement

is in the bible

Ok, I’m going back to my questions. Here’s 2Tim.3:15-17
15And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

If as it says here that scripture is able to make us wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. And it is inspired by God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. What more do we need? You say “It is only a part of the Ultimate Picture.” So you must think that there is some part of the gospel message that is more important than this that is only in the “oral tradition.” What would that be Gregg?

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Richard (and non-Catholics),

There are many questions in here so please answer them. Also, please answer the questions I asked in my previous post. Actually, answer those first.

Before I begin, I just noticed that you had asked for Bible verses to prove our point and someone responded with “I have done it three time.” Do you not believe us? Why ask if you are not going to believe us? Are your verses better than ours? We give you biblical reasons. We give you faith-illumined extra-biblical reasons. In all seriousness, what else do we need to prove our point?

Stop putting words in our mouths (or our statements). And no you are not about right with what I said. I never said there was anything “more important” in oral tradition in the Gospel message. Why “must” I think that? Or is that one of those assertions you made up to make sure I was wrong? I was just saying that it was only part of the Ultimate Picture. How does one change “only part of the Ultimate Picture” to “there is something more important in oral tradition than Scripture”? And our “oral tradition” is not only ours. It is everybody’s. Just like the Bible. Everybody can use it.

Where do you get these assertions of what WE believe? Why do YOU tell ME that I believe Christ’s one-time sacrifice is not enough? I was not even talking about His sacrifice and you assert from my statement that I am claiming that Christ’s sacrifice is not enough. How is that possible? This is seriously getting ridiculous. It is so crazy I cannot even think about an example that would parallel it sufficiently. All of the non-Catholics have said these things to me. They tell ME what I believe. An atheist told me I believe in magic. He told me I believe in contradictions and zombies. Of course, this is the same person that tried to disprove the existence of God by disproving the existence of Darth Vader but my point still stands. I know you would like us to believe what you say we believe because that would indeed make us wrong in our belief. If that is the only way you can prove us wrong, I think our case is proven.

Can a non-Catholic please answer this question: Why do YOU keep telling US what WE believe? Why do YOU think YOU know more about and understand more fully OUR doctrine and belief than WE do?

And I see you did not answer that question about whether or not God can protect the spoken Word of God from error. Please answer that question on my previous post. I would seriously like to know.

Seriously, I do not mind anybody telling me I am wrong. Really, I do not. It causes me to think about why I believe it is true and try to communicate it. It is an excellent exercise of faith and reason. BUT what I do completely loathe is when OTHERS tell ME what I believ and what I do not believe. I loathe it SO much that I actually laugh the anger out of myself. STOP TELLING ME WHAT I BELIEVE! Just tell me I am wrong and I will defend the fact that we are right.

And plus, we have given you many reasons and Bible verses. Many different ones actually. And yet you still ask for verses (this is why I do not use the Bible much against you all). And notice how your verse-slinging abilities are countered by contextual arguments. Your verses are certainly right but only in the context they were meant to be in (illumined by Tradition and the Church’s infallibility). The Bible verses you gave me support our idea, anyway. I have already explained this. PROFITABLE but not “complete” and not “only”. The Bible certainly helps and is inerrant. We are not saying you are wrong in believing the Bible, that it is important or that you should read it. We are saying that even in Scriptures (which my fellows have offered), it is indicated that oral tradition is just as important. IF anyone says oral tradition is more important, they are not saying that the content is more important, they are saying that because of the fact that without the spoken word, the written word would not exist. The content of both are just as important as each other and the spoken tradition illumines the written perfectly. This is why the early Church Fathers all teach the same thing even without the Bible. Our case (with my tiny pathetic contributions and my fellows numerous intelligent contributions) should be proved. You all cannot respond fully to our arguments. You give the same verses over and over even after our contextual arguments for the Church with those verses. AND you assert that we believe things that we certainly do not on top of all that. Running out of ideas?

 

[Calvin_95]

What do you think that I should ask them concerning these vs. pablope? You post these verses along with my two questions. Do you somehow think that they answer these questions?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Kastner
The questions are really not that hard to understand. You say that the CC is the only one that can infallibly interpret scripture. I would like to know what there is about 2Tim. 3:15-17 that you need interpreted? And if scripture is able to make us wise unto salvation what more than this is there that you think that we need?

By the way I believe everything that is in the bible.

Psalm 86:11 - enough said!

 

[Calvin_95]

Tom I thank you for the fine lesson on biblical history. But I don’t see an aswer to my questions. I’m not asking about Acts 15 Gen.17 Or Matt.16 What I am asking is if scripture, which I take to mean the bible, is able to make us wise UNTO SALVATION through FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST. What more than this is necessary and what about that do you need interpreted. Now all this talk about Acts 15 Gen17 and Matt.16 is fine but it is absolutely a diversion from these two very specific questions. Now if you can’t or won’t answer them that’s fine, but don’t make out like you answered them when you have totally ignored them. If you want to discuss circumcision or some other topic that’s for another thread. Here’s the OP once again.

I would like to know why Matt 16:18 is the only verse to which Catholics revert to an Aramaic translation/interpretation because it delutes or blurrs the true context of the passage contrary to the rest of Scripture to fit their error. With out that verse; well the dominos all fall down. A few verse later jesus calls Peter Satan and a few days after that two disciples are arguing over who will be the greatest in His Kingdom among themselves; Jesus should have said; that was decided a few days ago boys.

 

[Calvin_95]

you have forgotten that this is the Church teaching the people. it was not some individual who picked up the Bible one day and decided on their own to teach the Word of God. if you believed everything that is in the Bible, how do you explain what Jesus said, if you have a problem wiht thy brother take it to the Church. so, will you come with me to the CC to settle the matter we have right now?

You are twisting the Scripture; church discipline within the local body has nothing to do with what Richard said. It has to be the local body of assembled people because the Bride of Christ, the true church, has yet to be revealed as the whole of creation wiats eagerly for the revealing of the “sons of God”? Who are the “sons of God”? The bride of Christ, the church.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Calvin95,

I believe the entire Bible was inspired - the particular language is not the issue with God as the Principal Author. It is God Who communicates with men using human words for His Divine Purpose. While your selective view is totally understandable - you really have nothing else to go on - the issue you bring up questions the validity of the Word of God - which are fallen dominos to those who fail to believe it.

What I find truly amazing is that for 1600 the role of Peter and his successors was firmly established - and the Catholic Church brought Christ to the world. Calvin and his fellow heretics developed not only the traditions of men but a theology based on human ideas that claimed to follow Christ while denying the very words of Christ!

Christ claimed Baptism was necessary - yet Protestants can not agree on this.

Christ commanded us to eat His Flesh and drink His Blood - yet Protestants deny He meant this even though the four Gospel Writers, Peter and Paul all proclaim this mystery.

Christ delegated the Power of God to men to forgive sin - yet Protestants deny the Words of Christ and that He breathed on the Apostles giving them this Power.

Christ founded His Chruch on Peter, giving him the Keys and the authority to bind and lose on earth and it would be obeyed in Heaven - yet Protestants set up their own man made authority that is constantly in open warfare with other denominations and their own interpretations.

Seriously, if you want to see a pile of ‘fallen dominos’ just look around your own feet.

God bless

I would like to know why Matt 16:18 is the only verse to which Catholics revert to an Aramaic translation/interpretation because it delutes or blurrs the true context of the passage contrary to the rest of Scripture to fit their error. With out that verse; well the dominos all fall down. A few verse later jesus calls Peter Satan and a few days after that two disciples are arguing over who will be the greatest in His Kingdom among themselves; Jesus should have said; that was decided a few days ago boys.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Gregg,

Excellent post!

Personally, I do not think Richard has any real responses to what you or the others have offered him. He appears to have one verse of a worn out song that he has memorized. Anyone not singing along with his ideas has just not ‘answered’ his question - for he is only open to one answer. SS fails on every count - but, to acknowledge this means that they have nothing else - they refuse to acknowledge Apostolic Tradition and continue to fight against Christ’s Vicar on earth - Pope Benedict XVI.

There is another way to spell “denial” and that is: D.E.K.I.A.L.

It stands for: Don’t Even Know I Am Lying!

God bless

Richard (and non-Catholics),

There are many questions in here so please answer them. Also, please answer the questions I asked in my previous post. Actually, answer those first.

Before I begin, I just noticed that you had asked for Bible verses to prove our point and someone responded with “I have done it three time.” Do you not believe us? Why ask if you are not going to believe us? Are your verses better than ours? We give you biblical reasons. We give you faith-illumined extra-biblical reasons. In all seriousness, what else do we need to prove our point?

Stop putting words in our mouths (or our statements). And no you are not about right with what I said. I never said there was anything “more important” in oral tradition in the Gospel message. Why “must” I think that? Or is that one of those assertions you made up to make sure I was wrong? I was just saying that it was only part of the Ultimate Picture. How does one change “only part of the Ultimate Picture” to “there is something more important in oral tradition than Scripture”? And our “oral tradition” is not only ours. It is everybody’s. Just like the Bible. Everybody can use it.

Where do you get these assertions of what WE believe? Why do YOU tell ME that I believe Christ’s one-time sacrifice is not enough? I was not even talking about His sacrifice and you assert from my statement that I am claiming that Christ’s sacrifice is not enough. How is that possible? This is seriously getting ridiculous. It is so crazy I cannot even think about an example that would parallel it sufficiently. All of the non-Catholics have said these things to me. They tell ME what I believe. An atheist told me I believe in magic. He told me I believe in contradictions and zombies. Of course, this is the same person that tried to disprove the existence of God by disproving the existence of Darth Vader but my point still stands. I know you would like us to believe what you say we believe because that would indeed make us wrong in our belief. If that is the only way you can prove us wrong, I think our case is proven.

Can a non-Catholic please answer this question: Why do YOU keep telling US what WE believe? Why do YOU think YOU know more about and understand more fully OUR doctrine and belief than WE do?

And I see you did not answer that question about whether or not God can protect the spoken Word of God from error. Please answer that question on my previous post. I would seriously like to know.

Seriously, I do not mind anybody telling me I am wrong. Really, I do not. It causes me to think about why I believe it is true and try to communicate it. It is an excellent exercise of faith and reason. BUT what I do completely loathe is when OTHERS tell ME what I believ and what I do not believe. I loathe it SO much that I actually laugh the anger out of myself. STOP TELLING ME WHAT I BELIEVE! Just tell me I am wrong and I will defend the fact that we are right.

And plus, we have given you many reasons and Bible verses. Many different ones actually. And yet you still ask for verses (this is why I do not use the Bible much against you all). And notice how your verse-slinging abilities are countered by contextual arguments. Your verses are certainly right but only in the context they were meant to be in (illumined by Tradition and the Church’s infallibility). The Bible verses you gave me support our idea, anyway. I have already explained this. PROFITABLE but not “complete” and not “only”. The Bible certainly helps and is inerrant. We are not saying you are wrong in believing the Bible, that it is important or that you should read it. We are saying that even in Scriptures (which my fellows have offered), it is indicated that oral tradition is just as important. IF anyone says oral tradition is more important, they are not saying that the content is more important, they are saying that because of the fact that without the spoken word, the written word would not exist. The content of both are just as important as each other and the spoken tradition illumines the written perfectly. This is why the early Church Fathers all teach the same thing even without the Bible. Our case (with my tiny pathetic contributions and my fellows numerous intelligent contributions) should be proved. You all cannot respond fully to our arguments. You give the same verses over and over even after our contextual arguments for the Church with those verses. AND you assert that we believe things that we certainly do not on top of all that. Running out of ideas?

 

[Calvin_95]

Richard (and non-Catholics),

Where do you get these assertions of what WE believe? Why do YOU tell ME that I believe Christ’s one-time sacrifice is not enough? I was not even talking about His sacrifice and you assert from my statement that I am claiming that Christ’s sacrifice is not enough. How is that possible? This is seriously getting ridiculous. It is so crazy I cannot even think about an example that would parallel it sufficiently. All of the non-Catholics have said these things to me. They tell ME what I believe. An atheist told me I believe in magic. He told me I believe in contradictions and zombies. Of course, this is the same person that tried to disprove the existence of God by disproving the existence of Darth Vader but my point still stands. I know you would like us to believe what you say we believe because that would indeed make us wrong in our belief. If that is the only way you can prove us wrong, I think our case is proven.

Can a non-Catholic please answer this question: Why do YOU keep telling US what WE believe? Why do YOU think YOU know more about and understand more fully OUR doctrine and belief than WE do?

And I see you did not answer that question about whether or not God can protect the spoken Word of God from error. Please answer that question on my previous post. I would seriously like to know.

Seriously, I do not mind anybody telling me I am wrong. Really, I do not. It causes me to think about why I believe it is true and try to communicate it. It is an excellent exercise of faith and reason. BUT what I do completely loathe is when OTHERS tell ME what I believ and what I do not believe. I loathe it SO much that I actually laugh the anger out of myself. STOP TELLING ME WHAT I BELIEVE! Just tell me I am wrong and I will defend the fact that we are right.

And plus, we have given you many reasons and Bible verses. Many different ones actually. And yet you still ask for verses (this is why I do not use the Bible much against you all). And notice how your verse-slinging abilities are countered by contextual arguments. Your verses are certainly right but only in the context they were meant to be in (illumined by Tradition and the Church’s infallibility). The Bible verses you gave me support our idea, anyway. I have already explained this. PROFITABLE but not “complete” and not “only”. The Bible certainly helps and is inerrant. We are not saying you are wrong in believing the Bible, that it is important or that you should read it. We are saying that even in Scriptures (which my fellows have offered), it is indicated that oral tradition is just as important. IF anyone says oral tradition is more important, they are not saying that the content is more important, they are saying that because of the fact that without the spoken word, the written word would not exist. The content of both are just as important as each other and the spoken tradition illumines the written perfectly. This is why the early Church Fathers all teach the same thing even without the Bible. Our case (with my tiny pathetic contributions and my fellows numerous intelligent contributions) should be proved. You all cannot respond fully to our arguments. You give the same verses over and over even after our contextual arguments for the Church with those verses. AND you assert that we believe things that we certainly do not on top of all that. Running out of ideas?

You are being told what the Bible states, not opinion of what it means. For example above you state oral tradition is as important as written and you are using 1 timothy, which doesn’t even imply there is a difference ; in fact it implies it is one in the same. Paul is saying do I have taught you whether in person or by letter; it is the mode of the delivery of the message, not two different and distinct messages. It is so obvious; go back and read the passage. there is no mention of extra traditiona dneven if he did mention it and we were not given it,then god did not want us to have it. you can’t just profess to have a group of people make a claim they have extra revelation and claim to have infallible interpretive skills given by God with out proving it; you cannot prove somehting that doesn’t exist can you? Why do you think you are taught to say we interpret matt 16:18 in the Aramaic, but leave the rest to Greek & Hebrew? Because it deludes and blurs the obvious and if you put that single passage in it’s proper context with the rest of Scripture; you have nothing left but to believe the Bible alone.

I know you will disagree, but you can’t provide solid reasoning as to why that passage is interpreted in Aramaic, when the rest are not. Nor can you argue that if that passage were taken in it proper context or did not exist, then what basis could you have for a self appointed authority? None. you would have to rest on Scripture alone, which is what God intended because it is what god has revealed to man. All religions claim speacial revelation and authority ourside of Scripture or from some divine appartion or dream which appoints a single person or group of persons of having special powers granted from heaven contrary to Scriptural teaching of the plain word of God. The bible says that ignorant and small can understand the gospel and by hearing and understanding comes believing and upon believing one is saved. Not even very complicated; it is man that complicates it.