C
Cathdefender
Guest
Of course I accept the bible, the Word of God. But the church came before the bible, Jesus never said the bible is the only way to salvation, but the church is. 1Timothy 3:16
- Status
J
JRKH
Guest
not sure if you are rsponding to my post above, but if you are, you’re preaching to the choir.
Peace
James
C
Cathdefender
Guest
Well you did say I was blinded by the bible.not sure if you are rsponding to my post above, but if you are, you’re preaching to the choir.
Peace
James
J
JRKH
Guest
Cath, we have a serious miscommunication here.Well you did say I was blinded by the bible.
Lets clear this up:
BWENEATA IOAKIM, an individual who’s command of English is not great, posted something that appeared to me to support the position of the Church preceding the Bible.
I repsonded with a simple Smilie.
You then questioned me about it:
Anyway, glad you are back, but don’t know why you would applaud someone who goes only by the bible and nothing more.
Which, as you can see from above is NOT how I took the BWENEATA IOAKIM post.
I then took a stab at clarifying the problem post. I see now that I wasn’t very clear in my clarification attempt.
Short Story - If you remove yourself as the object of BWENEATA IOAKIM’s post and my “interpretation” of it, you will see that we are both saying that the Church existed before the bible. The reason some think the Bible came before the Church is because they have rejected Jesus as THE WORD.
Are we clear now?
Peace
James
C
Cathdefender
Guest
Yes. 
B
BWENEATA_IOAKIM
Guest
Thingking and writing like a child is not my intention to make you think seriouslly, but to make u understand what really the need of a child that is knowing nothing about the bible and the church.Cath, we have a serious miscommunication here.
Lets clear this up:
BWENEATA IOAKIM, an individual who’s command of English is not great, posted something that appeared to me to support the position of the Church preceding the Bible.
I repsonded with a simple Smilie.
You then questioned me about it:
Anyway, glad you are back, but don’t know why you would applaud someone who goes only by the bible and nothing more.
Which, as you can see from above is NOT how I took the BWENEATA IOAKIM post.
I then took a stab at clarifying the problem post. I see now that I wasn’t very clear in my clarification attempt.
Short Story - If you remove yourself as the object of BWENEATA IOAKIM’s post and my “interpretation” of it, you will see that we are both saying that the Church existed before the bible. The reason some think the Bible came before the Church is because they have rejected Jesus as THE WORD.
Are we clear now?
Peace
James
[Who’s command of…] is my first point to raise as I found in the church that there’s a chain of command or linkage in their teaching in relation to the bible(the church is, but not alone).Secondly,the bible itself has no prove on it own as sometimes we may confused,ignorance in other verses,interprete it to satisfy our own needs and wants and many more. As I can easily figure it out, one own interpletation or freedom of explession is very dangerous as it can mean the other things when he rely heavily on the words that is not applied.Its is a living words,not a 1500yrs dead.
lastly I thank a cathdefe… for giving the same answer to the response in which I have fully satisfied with its, and I am very amazing that how can you read and analyse the answer that inside mine? May be not on your own but someone that you may dont know.And to my brother in christ it is not mine to arque but to seek your’s.Since, I have already satisfy means that I’m defeated now.
J
JRKH
Guest
BWENEATA IOAKIM,
Thank you so much for your clarification. I hope you were not offended by my comment about your command of English. Your writing style makes it difficult to understand at first, but it forces us to read you more closely to discern your meaning, and that is not a bad thing.
Welcome to the Board and I hope you will stick around and continue to post.
Peace
James
J
Jesuspaiditall
Guest
WHAT? Is God limited by time??? He knows the future! The Bible is the word of God! If God inspired 2 Timothy, why wouldn’t he have meant the whole Bible? Doesn’t God know all? So do you think that the new testament wasn’t inspired by God? Then it could be completely wrong or unreliable!
J
JRKH
Guest
You are mixing metaphors here. God does not exist in “time” therefore God is not limited by it. God doesn’t know the future because, for Him there is no Future or Past.
Who says so!
Because all of the Book hadn’t been written and the Bible was not assembled and wouldn’t be for another 300 years or so. So all of the people who would read 2 Timothy would recognize it as refering to only the OT writings. I’ve heard this argument before and it just doesn’t hold water. you insist onlooking at the Bible as a “Whole” instead of accepting it for what it is. A core composite of inspired documents written more or less independently of each other and certainly independant of the Bible. What they were written in concert with was The Church.
It’s amazing how many jumps people can make when they are called to prove that the books contained in the Bible are the “Word of God”.
How many “books” were written during the NT period of say 33AD to 110AD when the last apostle had died. It was far more than 27. Were they all inspired? How and when and by whom were these particular 27 books selected?
The Bible would indeed be unreliable if you don’t accept that the Church, which predates the Bible, had the guidance and authority from God to compile the canon correctly.
Peace
James
B
Bwsherman
Guest
In reading this thread, I have found the issue of Peter being referred to as the rock in Matthew Ch. 16. I wonder why those that read this chapter and deny Peter’s importance completely ignore the earth-shattering moment that proceeds this changing of Peter’s name:
And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
[18] And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.
[19] I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Jesus was the promised fulfillment of the Davidic Kingdom, among other things, and in the Davidic Kingdom the person who was second in command was the keeper of the keys or Prime Minister. Refer to Is. 22:20-24…This clearly illustrates the importance of Peter and correlates with the line of thought throughout the rest of the New Testament. The fulfillment of the Davidic Kingdom also gives credence to the Catholic position on Our Lady…had to throw that in there.
And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
[18] And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.
[19] I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Jesus was the promised fulfillment of the Davidic Kingdom, among other things, and in the Davidic Kingdom the person who was second in command was the keeper of the keys or Prime Minister. Refer to Is. 22:20-24…This clearly illustrates the importance of Peter and correlates with the line of thought throughout the rest of the New Testament. The fulfillment of the Davidic Kingdom also gives credence to the Catholic position on Our Lady…had to throw that in there.
J
Jesuspaiditall
Guest
So if ALL SCRIPTURE only means the O.T., how do you know that Jesus was raised from the dead? How do you know that there should be a church of Jesus? What is your faith based on?
C
Cathdefender
Guest
Here is but one of many prime examples of the fulfillment of this verse, and it is the word “Trinity”.
Sola Scripture believers, please show me the word “Trinity” in the bible?
It is not there. It is not mentioned even once. Yet most SS believers do believe in the Trinity and they use that word extensively.
Isn’t that being hypocritical to say that you believe in SS and also in the Trinity?
Is not that the practice of “Doublethink”?
The Trinity was not formally defined until the year 381 by the Catholic first Council of Constantinople.
That was well over 270 years after the last book of the bible, Revelation was written.
Remember Ephesians 3:10 ? It said it is THE CHURCH that is the teacher.
John 16:13 all by itself is the death knell of the false man made doctrine of SS, which means “bible only”.
Or, “If I cannot find it in the bible, then I choose not to believe it simply because it does not exist or it never happened.”
J
JRKH
Guest
Our faith is based on the Tripod of:
Sacred Tradition,
Which Guides,
The Magisterium,
Which protects and interprets,
Sacred Scripture,
The Problem you face my friend is using only the last piece of this triad, Sacred Scripture. You are then forced to try and justify Scripture within Scripture and this leads to the kind of extrapolation shown here. (That 2 Timothy refers to scripture that hadn’t even been written yet)
On the other hand,
By holding to Sacred Tradition, and Apostolic Sucession, we are holding to the tried and true method of maintaining and protecting the faith, Oral Teaching.
By holding to the Teaching of the Magisterium we are holding to the unbroken teaching authority which studies and interprets the entire body of faith part of which is:
the Sacred Scriptures contained in the Bible as canonized by the Catholic Church circa 400 AD and reaffirmed unchanged by multiple councils through the centuries.
Peace
James
C
Cathdefender
Guest
**The church existed for many years from the time of the death of Jesus on the cross in about 33 A.D. until the first book of the New Testament was written in about 51 A.D.
The New Testament teaching during those years was none other than Tradition.
By the time that the last book of the New Testament was written around 100 A.D., the church which Jesus founded, was already on it’s fifth successor of Peter.**
The New Testament teaching during those years was none other than Tradition.
By the time that the last book of the New Testament was written around 100 A.D., the church which Jesus founded, was already on it’s fifth successor of Peter.**
J
Jesuspaiditall
Guest
So your Catholic faith is not based on the Bible (God’s word), but on tradition and the teachings of the RCC(man’s word)?
V
VWcrazy
Guest
The Bible is based on the Catholic Faith and upon the teachings of Jesus and His Apostles. The Church came before the Bible, not the other way around.
S
Stephen_C
Guest
Nope that is not what we said…please re-read post 112.
J
JRKH
Guest
I’m sorry that I must say, This is a foolish statement because it is based upon completely false assumptions.
Allow me to explain as best my humble knowledge permits.
Catholic Faith is based upon Fear of God and Love of Our Lord Jesus Christ who is the Living Word.
This Living Word came and dwelt among us. He taught, not by authoring books but by oral teaching. He taught men to whom he entrusted the founding of His Church which is the Catholic Church. This Church, thus founded and built up by the Apostles in the First century did, indeed, record some of the crucial events and teachings of our Lord.
Many other documents were also written during this time also claiming apostolic authority. Hundreds of them in fact. Christ’s Church on Earth then, under the guidance of the Holy spirit, collected and canonized the most central and authoritative of these books and letters into the NT. This collection, along with the Books of the OT became the Bible we know today. However this did not occur until well into the 4th century.
So for 300 plus years there was no, universally accepted cannon of writings. While the writings of the NT were available in the second and third centuries, they were not necessarily available everywhere, plus there were many other writings available and in use to varying degrees within the Church.
The Catholic Church’s Faith and teachings are founded upon The Word of God in Jesus Christ. Not just upon that portion recorded in written form. For it is written, “And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen.” (John 21:25)
Therefore recognize that the Bible, that collection of scripture so essential to our study, is but one part of the total deposit of faith and in fact is, as a collection in toto, the youngest part of the deposit.
Peace
James
I
Ignatius
Guest
Jesus founded The Catholic Church existed before the Bible. It was The Church which compiled the Bible. The Church continued it’s ission to spread the Gospel for nearly 100 years before the New Testament Scriptures were all written.
J
JRKH
Guest
I had a thought about the 2 Timothy quote this morning.
Jesuspaiditall is alluding to this passage:
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; (2 Timothy 3:16)
It is a passage that I have heard many Protestants hold up as proof for the Bible as indicated above.
By this reasoning God, writing through Paul, was not confined in any way to the specific “scriptures” Paul thought he was refering to. God inspired this text to include everything that would eventually be included in the Bible. including books that hadn’t even been written yet. Ergo, when the bible was assembled and codified God could inspire the councils to use whatever books He chose without concern since the quote from 2 Tim would cover them.
If protestants accept this reasoning, it automatically follows that the Protestant canon of the Bible is incomplete. It is missing the 7 inspired, and God selected books, plus equally inspired parts of 2 others which God chose to place in the Bible at the time of the Bible’s codification and would thus be covered by the quote at 2 Timothy 3:16.
This leads to some questions - observations:
- Either 2 Timothy is wrong and cannot be used as proof of the Bible, or
- 2 Timothy is right and the Protestant Canon is incomplete.
- If one holds to Timothy being right, then Sola Scriptura falls apart because those who espoused SS and promoted it did, at the same time, delete and nullify part of the actual scripture God chose to be inspired and part of the Bible.
Peace
James
- Status