P
PeterJohn
Guest
You still never provided me with a SOLID quote from the bible, from the words of our lord in that tell you that you can achieve salvation solely from scripture
- Status
P
pablope
Guest
Do you believe that the word of God is limited to only the written word?
And how do you know the Bible is indeed the written word of God? Where does the Bible state such?
K
Kathryn_Ann
Guest
Yes, it is.
Kathryn Ann, :angel1:Catholic Convert (2004) from protestant traditions.
Blessings on your day!:grouphug::harp::heaven:
Kathryn Ann, :angel1:Catholic Convert (2004) from protestant traditions.
Blessings on your day!:grouphug::harp::heaven:
M
Mike2010
Guest
Exactly, and not only that, but Jesus never promised a Book. He did however, give the world his Church, which is guided by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is also not the author of confusion, which is shown amongst the now 30-40,000 different denominations all disagreeing with each other in many issues. That is contradictory to the nature of God, who is all perfect.
J
Jim_Dandy
Guest
In the heart of the Catholic Church, in her Sacred Apostolic Traditions entrusted to her by Jesus and the Apostles.
Yes, but the Church was founded in A.D. 33. She had been teaching the Gospel and confecting the Eucharist for 77 years by the time the last of what eventually became the writings of the New Testament (NT) were finished. The NT was not defined and the Bible compiled until the very end of the fourth century and beginning of the fifth.
The writings of Paul and the Gospels of Mt, Mk, Lk, and Jn were accepted as “Scripture” early on (John was not written until the end of the first century), but the deuterocanonical writings of the NT – Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John, Revelation, and Mark 16:9-20 – were not accepted until the end of the fourth century. We know this from Eusebius’ History of the Church, written in the first quarter of the fourth century. And he reported that1 Clement was “Recognized.” The Shepherd of Hermes and Epistle of Barnabas were included as “Scripture” in the mid-fourth century Codex Sinaiticus. The making of the NT was a long winnowing process. The Church decided the contents of the NT and added them to the Greek Septuagint Scriptures she inherited from Jesus and the Apostles to form the Bible at the Councils of Rome (A.D. 382), Hippo (393), and Carthage (397, 419). The canon was in flux until the end of the fourth century.
You are mistaken.
ntcanon.org/Irenaeus.shtml
Quote: Regarding the New Testament canon, one finds in Adversus Haereses A.D. 180 - 189] quotations from all the books of the New Testament with the exception of:
Philemon, II Peter, III John, and Jude. He [Irenaeus] also considered these writings, not in the present New Testament, of value: I Clement, Shepherd of Hermas. However, the following he considered heretical: Gospel of Truth For a summary of his opinions see the Cross Reference Table. Irenaeus was especially insistent that there are exactly 4 Gospels, and used numerological arguments surrounding the number 4, such as the 4 covenants, for support. End quote
It is a fact of history that there was no book called the Bible until the end of the fourth Christian century and beginning of the fifth. No one could be certain which writings were inspired Scripture and which were not of the many writings that circulated among the local branches of the Church until Mother Church declared the canon.
Do you have the right the decide for yourself what Scripture is (the Inspired Word of God) and what is Scripture (the writings that belong in the Bible)? Can inspiration be proven? How do you know the Bible is the Word of God? Answer: because someone told you and you believed it. The Bible doesn’t make that claim. It can’t. It is a collection of writings, not a continuous book, and requires an authority to attest that it is the Word of God. That authority is the Church that wrote the NT and compiled the Bible, guided by the Spirit. *NT, OT, *and Bible are terms the Catholic Church used to name her collection of sacred Scripture.
God entrusted His Church – the Catholic Church – with the duty of writing and producing the Bible. This is the Church referred to in the NT – “church” does not include the multitude of ecclesial communities that call themselves “churches” which developed in or after the 16th century. The Catholic Church did not come out of the Bible – rather, the Bible came out of the Catholic Church.
Catholic Church: Founded by Jesus Christ in A.D. 33 in Jerusalem.
Methodist ecclesial community: **Founded by John and Charles Wesley between 1739 and 1744 in England, split from the Church of England.
One is God-made. One is man-made.
**Peace be with you.
C
CopticChristian
Guest
High,
I do not know…you tell me…this is the Methodist Family Tree…
thearda.com/Denoms/Families/Trees/familytree_methodist.asp#
You want me to believe that they all have the same Rule of Faith and decided to unite or divide? It seems there is lots to argue about or they would be united…
K
kepha1
Guest
Originally Posted by CopticChristian forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
*High,
It has been proven on another thread that the Bible cannot proven to be “true” based on the Bible alone…so first you have to establish that the Bible is the Bible. How do you do that…
then to continue in a path that does not deviate from the Apostles…how do you do that?*
Before the canon of the Bible, the Christian Rule of Faith **(TRADITION) ** included belief in the Apostolic succession through the Episcopate, the authority of Tradition itself, the authority of Scripture, the three fold ministry (bishop-priest-deacon), the Eucharist as Sacrifice, belief in baptismal regeneration, prayers for the dead, veneration of the Saints, the Seven sacraments, the evangelical counsels, and others.
The historical evidence is there for anyone who wishes to see it.
*High,
It has been proven on another thread that the Bible cannot proven to be “true” based on the Bible alone…so first you have to establish that the Bible is the Bible. How do you do that…
then to continue in a path that does not deviate from the Apostles…how do you do that?*
John, do you mean they compared scripture with a non-existing Bible? Or did they test the scripture against Apostolic Teaching?
Before the canon of the Bible, the Christian Rule of Faith **(TRADITION) ** included belief in the Apostolic succession through the Episcopate, the authority of Tradition itself, the authority of Scripture, the three fold ministry (bishop-priest-deacon), the Eucharist as Sacrifice, belief in baptismal regeneration, prayers for the dead, veneration of the Saints, the Seven sacraments, the evangelical counsels, and others.
The historical evidence is there for anyone who wishes to see it.
P
Patavium
Guest
and the pastors of all these churches go to the bible, and are able to have no difference across teachings, because of their “apostolic succession” according to highHigh,
I do not know…you tell me…this is the Methodist Family Tree…
thearda.com/Denoms/Families/Trees/familytree_methodist.asp#
You want me to believe that they all have the same Rule of Faith and decided to unite or divide? It seems there is lots to argue about or they would be united…
E
Erich
Guest
a couple of reasons:
- too much to fit within the limits of the per-post character count limit
- Forum rules state, “Do not paste entire articles from web sites into a post. If you wish to reference an article on the web, link to its web address, instead.”
“That’s not the scriptural way of doing things” is what’s wrong with that. In summary:
The Gospel message and the necessary authority that accompanies its preaching was passed on from God to Jesus Christ, then to the Apostles. After the original 12 Apostles, how is this Gospel and apostolic authority passed on? Is it passed on at all? After the death of the last Apostle, can any individual who feels “called” by God simply take up the mission and message and carry on where the Apostles left off?
The answer to this question is plainly “no,” as we have already begun to see from Scripture. The mission and the message can only be passed on by someone who first possessed it. That is, the mission does not merely entail preaching the message, but with it comes the authority to spiritually “reproduce” and pass on the necessary authority to the next generation.
Biblically, there is only one way to become a legitimate ambassador of Christ, or “pastor”: by appointment from a superior. This can be done in two ways: being commissioned by a legitimate ambassador (apostolic succession), or being called directly by God. Sts. Timothy and Titus were appointed to their positions of authority by succession, Moses was appointed to his position directly by God, with no human mediation.
Apostolic succession comes through the laying on of hands in ceremony: “Hence I remind you to rekindle the gift of God that is within you through the laying on of my hands… guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us.” (2 Tim. 1:6, 14) When St. Paul imposed his hands on St. Timothy, he passed on a legitimate apostolic authority, “entrusted” the “truth” to him, and imparted the gift of “the Holy Spirit” for the safekeeping and preservation of the Gospel.
Only a superior can do this, and not an inferior, since an inferior cannot pass on what he does not already possess. For the same reason, a congregation’s vote cannot suffice, Scripturally speaking, to appoint a man as “pastor,” since the congregation (of inferior authority) cannot confer superior authority upon a man.
Now, the majority of Protestant pastors reject entirely the notion of apostolic succession (although it can be clearly shown, from Scripture, that apostolic succession is the ordinary means of transmitting apostolic authority and the Gospel message), and so only one option remains for the Protestant pastor: to claim to have been appointed directly by God, as Moses was (that is, by extraordinary means).
Scripture teaches that this supernatural, extraordinary calling by God directly is the exception, not the rule. In the exceptional, extraordinary case, Scripture requires the proof of miracles, signs, and wonders for authenticity (Ex.4:1-9, Ex. 6:29-7:3, Heb. 2:3-4, Acts 3:1-9, Acts 4:29-30, Acts 6:8, Acts 19:11-12)
Finally, there is the example of Our Lord Himself. His was, of course, an extraordinary calling, He being sent on His mission to earth by God the Father directly. "Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority; but the Father who dwells in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father in me; or else believe me for the sake of the works themselves. Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I go to the Father. (John 14:10-12)
“If I bear witness to myself, my testimony is not true; there is another who bears witness to me, and I know that the testimony which he bears to me is true. You sent to John, and he has borne witness to the truth. Not that the testimony which I receive is from man; but I say this that you may be saved. He was a burning and shining lamp, and you were willing to rejoice for a while in his light. But the testimony which I have is greater than that of John; for the works which the Father has granted me to accomplish, these very works which I am doing, bear me witness that the Father has sent me.” (John 5:31-36)
Your pastor says “he was called by God.” Where are the miracles that must attend his ministry as verification of his extraordinary calling? If even Jesus submitted to this proof-test, how can any mere man exempt himself from this same test, unless he wishes to say he is greater than even Jesus?
Are you certain that the man who shepherds your soul is a legitimate leader? Or are you following a self-appointed shepherd who is in rebellion against God’s appointed authorities? (Hint… don’t answer these questions until after you’ve read By What Authority?)
T
Trebor135
Guest
included belief in the Apostolic succession through the Episcopate, the authority of Tradition itself, the authority of Scripture, the three fold ministry (bishop-priest-deacon), the Eucharist as Sacrifice, belief in baptismal regeneration, prayers for the dead, veneration of the Saints, the Seven sacraments, the evangelical counsels, and others.
The historical evidence is there for anyone who wishes to see it.
John has claimed that the third century was when things started to go off the rails. For the education of us all, I’d like to request ECF citations before 200 A.D. from your files regarding “the Eucharist as Sacrifice”, “veneration of the Saints”, and “the Seven sacraments”, because these are specific items that John has stated are and/or would describe as non-apostolic innovations (see post #31 on page 3).
B
Bible_is_truth
Guest
Hi,
Read 2 Timothy Ch 3 ,V’s 16 - 17…
Hope this answers the question.
Blessings to all.
T
Trebor135
Guest
But this passage does not tell us which books belong in the Bible or how to settle the issue ourselves.
B
Bible_is_truth
Guest
I do not doubt the word .I cannot question my quote.
Blessings
B
Bible_is_truth
Guest
Something different,
I have been to Canada ,Niagra Falls, I Long to go back and see more of your Beautiful Country.
B
Bible_is_truth
Guest
T
Trebor135
Guest
I wasn’t suggesting that you doubt the word, but that you pose and ponder an important question: “Why do I accept these sixty-six books, and no others, as divinely inspired Scripture?”
T
Trebor135
Guest
Something different,
I have been to Canada ,Niagra Falls, I Long to go back and see more of your Beautiful Country.
Canada’s a pretty nice place, apart from the quite secular environment here.I’ve been to Niagara Falls a few times–although I’m fully blind, I must express appreciation for the experience of listening to such a spectacular natural phenomenon in action before me.
Alberta has a lot of great sites to see too, among them Lake Louise and the Hot Springs. As does Quebec–the Ice Hotel and the old cathedrals.
Also, the city of Ottawa offers the famous treat known as beaver tails and hosts some magnificent shawarma restaurants. (Lord, save me from the sin of gluttony
)God bless
T
Trebor135
Guest
You thought right, my good sir. I should really go to bed. One more essay (a collaborative one) to work on, and this school year will be over at last–thanks be to God.Just Thought,
you must be up early over there? 09:30 hrs here
B
BenedictFTW
Guest
It seems to be the case that many Protestants are unaware of how the Bible was changed to suit the heresies of the 16th century. Martin Luther did not like certain books of the Bible, so he removed them. He also did not like what St Paul said in one of his letters, and so he removed any reference to works being needed for salvation along with faith and substituted the word “alone”, making it read entirely differently. Protestants also objected to the books of the Maccabees and one of the books of Daniel, among others.
Please listen to Michael Voris on RealCatholicTV.com. He tells all about the Reformation and what happened to the Bible at the hands of Protestants. This meddling and distorting of the Word of God has led to errors being perpetrated by Protestants since the 1500s. Also, even today, many Protestants believe in “Sola Scriptura”, which is false. The Bible does not say that the Bible is the only scripture! Therefore, who told the Protestants that the Bible is the only scripture? Not the Pope, who is the authority on all things to do with the authentic Christian faith. So who? From where do Protestants derive their authority? Where do they get their understanding of scripture? The Bible is not self-interpretive. The aspect of Protestantism that tells them they can all find their own meanings in scripture, is the reason there are 40,000 sects within that ‘faith’ … and counting.
The Truths of Jesus are upheld within Catholicism, but are not within Protestantism, wherein we get divorce and remarriage - against the 6th Commandment and endorsed by Jesus in the NT, - homosexually active persons even within the Protestant Church - against the teachings within the OT and endorsed by St Paul in his letters, as well as the Book of Revelations; - many other errors are practised by Protestants, although they profess to believe in what the Bible teaches. What they lack is direction from the Shepherd of our Church - appointed by Jesus Himself, when He gave the Keys of the Kingdom to Peter and his successors. Our Popes are hated by Protestants; even the best of whom seem to think that he (Benedict XVI) cannot speak for them.
The terrible crimes of Martin Luther, John Calvin and others are felt today, especially in the divisions and disunity of the Christian Church.
God bless.
L
Luvtosew
Guest
He has been banned so to refer to his posts is a one way conversation, and I dont know if banned people can come here and read stuff, and if they do its hard because they can’t respond or tell their point of view. its like have someone talk to you and you can’t defend yourself.
- Status