"It's not biblical"

[Newbie2]

No real point here except that the oft-used arguement against Catholic teaching, “It’s not biblical” seem ever so to be a sham argument. This isn’t a new revelation to me, but perhaps I’m just tired and ornery this AM.

If someone using those arguements actually read the Church teachings on the various things for which we’re accused of making things up, they’d discover that they are indeed “biblical”.

 

[Christy_Beth]

But that’s not likely to happen anytime soon. I’m the only Catholic in my family. They don’t give me any real problem, but they aren’t going to listen to me about what the Church really teaches. And my daughter has flat out said that she will never set foot in a Catholic Church.

 

[Church_Militant]

No real point here except that the oft-used arguement against Catholic teaching, “It’s not biblical” seem ever so to be a sham argument. This isn’t a new revelation to me, but perhaps I’m just tired and ornery this AM.

See the Mudgies coffee shop thread in The Clubhouse Forum.

If someone using those arguments actually read the Church teachings on the various things for which we’re accused of making things up, they’d discover that they are indeed “biblical”.

Yeah, I know, but that would mean one would actually have to obey the New Testament mandate of Saint Paul and “Carefully study to present thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.” (2nd Timothy 2:15) Like I did.

 

[po18guy]

See the Mudgies coffee shop thread in The Clubhouse Forum. Yeah, I know, but that would mean one would actually have to obey the New Testament mandate of Saint Paul and “Carefully study to present thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.” (2nd Timothy 2:15) Like I did.

And the threads in which the writings of Saint Paul are used against the Church. Certain of our brothers admonish us to read Saint Paul and John, but not one ever mentions John 6 or 1 Corinthians 11. Since the early church fathers’ writings were not “inspired-inerrant”, they are not interested.

They also conveniently forget that their bible is only “inspired-inerrant” because the authority of one Pope (and the council) declared it so. Sola scriptura is the evil one’s greatest achievement. With it, he has divided and weakened the Body of Christ. He appealed to the ego, just as he did at Eden, and it worked. Christians now argue with one another, rather than against his evil.

Yeah, maybe I’m a mudgie too…

 

[Charlie_Vivian]

I come from 20 years of protestantism/evangelicalism, and only crossed the Tiber in Easter.

The biggest problem of the reliance on individual interpretation is the fruit: 40,000 denominations, growing at 5 per week. What a disintegrated body!

I love the Scriptures, and it was thrilling seeing so many of my favourite texts being used within the Catechism, to justify the church’s position.

But as Karl Keating has written, no evangelical will become a Catholic quickly: a lot of error has to be corrected first.

 

[PJM]

My dear friends in Christ,

The argument that eveything one “needs to know” is bible based is simply not true.

Defending this weak argument is easy. I’m not saying that it is easily accepted, because God enlightens only those that He chooses.

Ask: “where in the bible does it say that everything that we need to know, or everything we need to do, or everything we are to learn, is in the bible?” None of these statements are founded on bibical truth, none!

Indeed, the Old Testament was passed on verbally for many centuries, before they were recorded by God inspiried authors.

Scripture? Yes! But also Sacred Tradition and common sense.

God’s continued blessings on you and yours,

Pat Miron
Marian Catecheist

 

[po18guy]

I come from 20 years of protestantism/evangelicalism, and only crossed the Tiber in Easter.

The biggest problem of the reliance on individual interpretation is the fruit: 40,000 denominations, growing at 5 per week. What a disintegrated body!

I love the Scriptures, and it was thrilling seeing so many of my favourite texts being used within the Catechism, to justify the church’s position.

But as Karl Keating has written, no evangelical will become a Catholic quickly: a lot of error has to be corrected first.

Amen Welcome home! The Holy Spirit sometimes quickly, sometimes slowly, removes the “something like scales” from our eyes, and we can see the truth clearly. He worked on me over 20 years’ time. but, Oh, what joy when the truth is revealed. Amen! Alleluia!

Christ’s peace.

 

[M0nkey]

Catholics just take the literal interpretation of sacred scripture more seriously, and we don’t leave the words hanging out left up for questioning. Hence the scriptures are interpreted based on the one truth.

You have to use scripture to interpret scripture…

 

[Newbie2]

Catholics just take the literal interpretation of sacred scripture more seriously, and we don’t leave the words hanging out left up for questioning. Hence the scriptures are interpreted based on the one truth.

You have to use scripture to interpret scripture…

Excellent point. It’s not about eisagesis (isagesis) it’s about exegesis. Picking and choosing scripture verses that support a preconception is intellectually and spiritual bastardization.

 

[charlye]

No real point here except that the oft-used arguement against Catholic teaching, “It’s not biblical” seem ever so to be a sham argument. This isn’t a new revelation to me, but perhaps I’m just tired and ornery this AM.

If someone using those arguements actually read the Church teachings on the various things for which we’re accused of making things up, they’d discover that they are indeed “biblical”.

Okay … I’ll bite. Where in scripture do we find the assumption of Mary?

Oh, I know full well what your church teaches but the assumption of Mary isn’t biblical. Your turn.

 

[po18guy]

Okay … I’ll bite. Where in scripture do we find the assumption of Mary?

Oh, I know full well what your church teaches but the assumption of Mary isn’t biblical. Your turn.

Well many non-Catholics deny that Peter was chief amongst the Apostles, but it’s right there. There are many other things as well - it’s just that they are using a faulty interpretation of the Catholic bible. The Catholic church has never claimed that everything she believes and teaches is “biblical”. She does maintain that everything is contained in scripture, revelation and tradition - the deposit of faith. John saw Mary in Heaven when he wrote the Apocalypse. She’s in there. Also, the bible tells us in several places that it is incomplete. Therefore, tradition was passed on, both as to Mary’s assumption as well as anecdotes about John in his later years.

 

[e61iuser]

Easy answer to this:

“Sure it might not be Biblical, but I can show you that it’s not ANTI-Biblical! There’s a huge difference you know.”

Then proceed to shoot down their arguments with Bible verses and sound logic. Lots of things are unBiblical (like the pyramids and Sphinx. How could Moses traipse through Egypt and not even mention those pyramids or the Sphinx one single time? Even better, ask them to show you the word Trinity in there.) but that doesn’t mean it’s ANTI-Biblical.

 

[KingAlfred]

No real point here except that the oft-used arguement against Catholic teaching, “It’s not biblical” seem ever so to be a sham argument. This isn’t a new revelation to me, but perhaps I’m just tired and ornery this AM.

If someone using those arguements actually read the Church teachings on the various things for which we’re accused of making things up, they’d discover that they are indeed “biblical”.

Like most other forms of fundamentalism, Biblical fundamentalism is wrong-headed and even potentially dangerous. It plays on a standard human weakness to want things to be simple. Therefore, it’s appealing to those who want to conclude that a single BOOK has all the answers, and represents the full embodiment of God. Fundies are guilty of worshiping the Bible, not God.

 

[Newbie2]

Okay … I’ll bite. Where in scripture do we find the assumption of Mary?

Oh, I know full well what your church teaches but the assumption of Mary isn’t biblical. Your turn.

Sorry, I won’t bite on that one. You’re doing the very thing I was ranting about: “Show me where this is in scripture”. When I’ve answered that, there can be an endless demand for “Show mees”, and that’s not my intent.

Please note that I did not write that scripture explicitly states every bit of Catholic doctrine and dogma. Some things are very clear and some things take some exegetical work.

From Jason Evert in This Rock:

Several Bible passages offer implicit evidence that Mary was assumed into heaven. Both Enoch and Elijah were assumed into heaven (Heb. 11:5, 2 Kgs. 2:11). Also, in Matthew 27:52-53 one can read about saints whose bodies left the grave after the Resurrection of Christ. The early resurrection of these saints anticipated the rising of those who die in faith, all of who will be assumed one day to receive their glorified bodies. Belief in the assumption of Mary is simply the belief that God granted her this gift early, as he appears to have done for others in Matthew 27:52-53.

 

[e61iuser]

Or if you use my technique, you could say this:

I can show you in the Bible that if God chooses, He can assume anyone He wants into Heaven. Take the case of Elijah for example:

2 Kings 2:11 says: “As they were walking along and talking together, suddenly a chariot of fire and horses of fire appeared and separated the two of them, and Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind”

God chose to assume Elijah to Heaven. Why can’t he choose to do the same thing to the Woman who bore Him in her womb? It’s not ANTI-Biblical then for an assumption to happen. It’s ANTI-Biblical for you to think that God can’t assume anyone He chooses to into Heaven.

 

[po18guy]

Sorry, I won’t bite on that one. You’re doing the very thing I was ranting about: “Show me where this is in scripture”. When I’ve answered that, there can be an endless demand for “Show mees”, and that’s not my intent.

How shallow the faith of those who demand to see proof before they will believe! A generation of doubting Thomases. May He reveal His truth to them, admonishing them “Do not persist in unbelief, but believe!”

 

[charlye]

Well many non-Catholics deny that Peter was chief amongst the Apostles, but it’s right there. There are many other things as well - it’s just that they are using a faulty interpretation of the Catholic bible. The Catholic church has never claimed that everything she believes and teaches is “biblical”. She does maintain that everything is contained in scripture, revelation and tradition - the deposit of faith. John saw Mary in Heaven when he wrote the Apocalypse. She’s in there. Also, the bible tells us in several places that it is incomplete. Therefore, tradition was passed on, both as to Mary’s assumption as well as anecdotes about John in his later years.

Great RC two-step there, po18guy! But since we’re speaking of things “biblical”, would it not be of greater advantage to your argument if you actually **quoted **something from scripture?

Mary’s assumption is not contained within scripture, neither implicitly nor explicitly, and you know it … and until you can quote me a passage from God’s word testifying to this, it’s nothing more than empty words.

 

[po18guy]

Great RC two-step there, po18guy! But since we’re speaking of things “biblical”, would it not be of greater advantage to your argument if you actually **quoted **something from scripture?

Mary’s assumption is not contained within scripture, neither implicitly nor explicitly, and you know it … and until you can quote me a passage from God’s word testifying to this, it’s nothing more than empty words.

How hard your heart and how shallow your faith! You must see written proof before you will believe. Must an Angel appear before you for you to believe? Would you then demand written proof from the Angel? It’s in the tradition of the Apostles. You believe their scripture yet appear to call them liars as to tradition?

Such history is known only to a Church which has roots. A Church which has Paul’s tradition as well as scripture. It is you who assume that the Apostles, or their successors were liars when they weren’t penning scripture. Doctrine was not made up out of whole cloth, but sola scriptura was. And yet you believe it.

Please quote me the scripture for sola scriptura.

 

[foundthelight]

Great RC two-step there, po18guy! But since we’re speaking of things “biblical”, would it not be of greater advantage to your argument if you actually **quoted **something from scripture?

Mary’s assumption is not contained within scripture, neither implicitly nor explicitly, and you know it … and until you can quote me a passage from God’s word testifying to this, it’s nothing more than empty words.

2Ti 3:16 All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice:

“Scripture … is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice”

Where does scripture say that it is the sole source to be used to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice?

I suggest you look up the Strong’s definition for the Greek word translated as profitable.

Until you can answer my question there can be no answer to yours.

 

[charlye]

God chose to assume Elijah to Heaven. Why can’t he choose to do the same thing to the Woman who bore Him in her womb? It’s not ANTI-Biblical then for an assumption to happen. It’s ANTI-Biblical for you to think that God can’t assume anyone He chooses to into Heaven.

You’re absolutely right … God can do anything He so chooses. Question: if Elijah and Enoch were taken up to heaven by God, and it is recorded in scripture, why do you think that Mary’s “assumption” was left out … I mean, after all, would the Holy Spirit really omit this in light of the fact that Mary’s believed to be the mother of God?

The following was the original statement …

"If someone using those arguements actually read the Church teachings on the various things for which we’re accused of making things up, they’d discover that they are indeed "biblical".

So far no one has stepped up to the plate with biblical substantiation … pitiful.