It's NOT in the Bible, okay?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Church_Militant
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It does not "reasonably " follow either.

Where does Scripture say that Jesus didn’t take the time to go to America after His ascension?)
WHere does Scripture say that Jesus didn’t dine with a couple of aliens from Alpha Centauri, whom He met on another cloud on His way back up?

See my point? Your argument is flawed. And asking me to point out where in Scripture it says that the RC understanding is incorrect, and claiming that it’s true because I’m unable to do so, is like me asking you to point out where in Scripture it says that Jesus didn’t meet up with a couple of little green men, and then assuming that He did, because you cannot prove otherwise.

Utter nonsense.
Yeah! Now we are back where we started.

Ok so then what you really mean by “Sola Scriptura” is that everything needs to be explicit in scripture in order for it to be true, well except of course for that things having to be explict in scripture thing which doesn’t have to be explicit in scripture.

It is not enough that the Authority of the Catholic Church says it is part of the Apostolic Faith and that it does not conflict with scipture.

Yet you do not hold “Sola Scriptura” to the same threshold of proof.

Chuck
 
Yeah! Now we are back where we started.

Ok so then what you really mean by “Sola Scriptura” is that everything needs to be explicit in scripture in order for it to be true,
Nego!
I used your own argument against you. Please remember where this started:
You argued Mary as the Queen of Heaven from the fact that this was how things worked in the theocratic Israel. I said that was a non-sequitur. You then said, that it “reasonably followed”, although you did admit that it does not necessarily follow. I, then, accepted the premise that when the Bible doesn’t expressly speak out against a teaching, it it could be true, and threw another theory out that the Bible does not speak of, and which, by your own definition, could therefore be true.

Can we move on, now?
 
i would agree with your causal glance at scripture if i did not already know scripture and it is painfully obvious that all of you have a view of scripture that is less than admirable for christians.
Excuse me? You are way outta line in that you have just alleged that we are not Christians, which is not at all true, (not to mention grossly offensive).

The problem, (for you anyway), is that the beliefs that we hold predate the Reformation and, in fact, can be verified all the way back to the New Testament and in the verifiable writings of the very disciples of the apostles themselves. Read them yourself.
there are no modern or ancient interpretations, there is correct and incorrect and the differences lie with the holy spirit of truth and promise. you catholics are sending a mixed message, you have the holy spirit but the holy spirt lies with the “church” and is able to interpret whereas the scripture tells us something simialr to your views, that people have the holy spirit, but then you mix in this concept of church which appears to be defined in terms foreign to scripture…like i have seen some of you refer to a magisterium and deposit of faith lead by the holy spirit…that is not only confusing but simply incorrect…i don’t know any of you can know the truth with such a mixed bag of beliefs…i am really curious to know how catholics define what exactly the church is or is not…this is where my own confusion is originating, you seem to have a biblical and non-biblical principla working together…perhaps you could clarify for me the catholic position on exactly what the church is and is not…thanks
An exemplary display of a biased misrepresentation (or [hopefully] misunderstanding) of Catholic beliefs.

Furthermore it will lead this thread off topic.

So…again…I ask for scriptures that specifically say that everything that we believe and practice must be found within the pages of the Bible.
 
Nego maiorem!
(and that transcription of the Greek text really hurt my eyes…)

Ἡ μὲν οὖν ἐκκλησία **καθ’ ὅλης **
, is the passage.

Now, “καθ’ ὅλης” is not, as you seem to think, one word, and a name. It is two words, a preposition “καθ” (from κατα, here meaning “throughout” ) and an adjective “ὅλης”, from “ὅλος”, “whole”, “entire”.

They are two words, meaning "throughout (the) entire (Judea etc…).

Not even the Vulgata has the understanding of the text that you want it to have. The text of the Vulgata reads:

“ecclesia quidem per totam”

not “ecclesia quidem catholica”, which would be what we would expect, if Hieronymus had read it the way you do.

So, what can we conclude?
You rolled an epic failure. Care to try again?No. The assertion was that the Catholic Church was not mentioned in scripture and that is read ekklesia kath olos which is factually read Catholic Church, even by definition in translation.

“the church throughout all” is the literal definition of Catholic, or universal.

It is simply meant to prove a point…nothing more.
 
Nego!
I used your own argument against you. Please remember where this started:
You argued Mary as the Queen of Heaven from the fact that this was how things worked in the theocratic Israel. I said that was a non-sequitur. You then said, that it “reasonably followed”, although you did admit that it does not necessarily follow. I, then, accepted the premise that when the Bible doesn’t expressly speak out against a teaching, it it could be true, and threw another theory out that the Bible does not speak of, and which, by your own definition, could therefore be true.

Can we move on, now?
No all I said was “Because Heaven has a King and He has a Mother.”

It wasn’t an arguement at all.

Mary is Queen of Heaven becuase God thought it should be so.

I believe this to be true because the Catholic Church tells me so.

I believe this is logically reasonable “because heaven has a King and He has a Mother” which is consistent types presented in the old testament.

Then given that the teaching “doesn’t conflict with scripture and is taught by my authority” definition of Sola Scriptura then it is therefore an acceptable doctrine for me to embrace.

You are the one that said Catholics were not being consistent with this definition. If you accept that Mary being Queen of Heaven is a theological possiblity for which you have no basis for objection, then why are we discussing it at all in a thread on Sola Scriptura not being found in the bible?

So by all means, let’s move on, since we are back to a “Sola Scriptura” definition that is umm…oh yeah what was that again. Catholic.

Hopefully we can re-define all of the “solas” to correspond with Catholic teaching and then we can all claim victory and get back to being one church.

Chuck
 
What about Our Lord’s promise that the Holy Spirit will teach us all things and bring them to our remembrance?
That verse is always a difficult one for Protestants to interpret. When I was a Baptist I went along with the ‘company line’ that Jesus was speaking of the writing of the Gospels. But that narrows it down and makes it too simplistic.
 
No. The assertion was that the Catholic Church was not mentioned in scripture and that is read ekklesia kath olos which is factually read Catholic Church, even by definition in translation.

“the church throughout all” is the literal definition of Catholic, or universal.

It is simply meant to prove a point…nothing more.
“Catholic” is not a name, period. It is a subtraction of two words.
The “assertion” is true - there IS no mention of the RC Church in the BIble - and Acts 9 does not speak of it. What we have here is a classic hermeneutic circle. You already have the answers, then twists the Bible to fit with those answers, and then claim that the Bible supports them.
Well, I ain’t buying.
 
You already have the answers, then twists the Bible to fit with those answers, and then claim that the Bible supports them.
Well, I ain’t buying.
I see.

And whereas you, on the other hand, come to Scripture with zero biases, right? In fact, as a young boy, I imagine you were taught nothing of Christianity by sources outside the good book, yes? You were simply told to read Scripture as soon as you were of an age to do so, and determine for yourself what it says? Yes, how silly of us to imagine that a person is to come to Scripture in light of human teaching…and yes, how perspicuous Scripture really is…so simple to understand if one will simply just read it.

Or do you actually concede that you are more like us, and were in fact the recipient of human teaching from your human Lutheran role models, and that varied mosaic has shaped your understanding of the faith today? And if so, we are now supposed to believe that you don’t come to Scripture with that bias and are hence influenced greatly by it?
 
Why do you assume that there HAS to be a “Queen of Heaven”?
This should explain that…

The Establishment of Jesus’ Kingdom and Royal Court
Luke 1:31–33
And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of his kingdom there will be no end.
Jesus inherits David’s throne, and Mary becomes Queen Mother. Support for the principle of the Queen Mother in the House of David is found clearly in the following passages:
1 Kings 2:19
When Bathsheba went to King Solomon to speak to him for Adonijah, the king stood up to meet her, bowed down to her and sat down on his throne. He had a throne brought for the king’s mother, and she sat down at his right hand.
Since Solomon had MANY wives, none of them would be queen. In fact, it was his mother that sat on the throne. This idea is also evident in the book of Jeremiah:
Jeremiah 13:18
18 Say to the king and to the queen mother, “Come down from your thrones, for your glorious crowns will fall from your heads.”
From these two passages, we can see that the mother of the king held the title of Queen in the Davidic kingdom. We also know that Mary is the Queen of Heaven from the following:
Revelation 12:1-2
1A great and wondrous sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. 2She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth.
Since the writer goes on to say that the woman gave birth to a son who would rule the nations, we can conclude that the woman wearing the crown in heaven is the Mother of Jesus, Mary.

Finally, Jesus establishes Peter as His royal steward for He gives to Peter “the keys of the kingdom of heaven”. This alludes to the prophecy of Isaiah that reads,
Isaiah 22:20-22
"In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.”
In ancient times, the king would choose a Royal Steward or prime minister who literally wore a large key as a symbol of his office and who spoke with the authority of the king. Jesus gives Peter the authority to speak in His name and extends his authority beyond the earthly realm when he gives Peter the “keys to the kingdom of heaven.”
 
Nego maiorem!
(and that transcription of the Greek text really hurt my eyes…)

Ἡ μὲν οὖν ἐκκλησία **καθ’ ὅλης **, is the passage.

Now, “καθ’ ὅλης” is not, as you seem to think, one word, and a name. It is two words, a preposition “καθ” (from κατα, here meaning “throughout” ) and an adjective “ὅλης”, from “ὅλος”, “whole”, “entire”.

They are two words, meaning "throughout (the) entire (Judea etc…).

Not even the Vulgata has the understanding of the text that you want it to have. The text of the Vulgata reads:

“ecclesia quidem per totam”

not “ecclesia quidem catholica”, which would be what we would expect, if Hieronymus had read it the way you do.

So, what can we conclude?
You rolled an epic failure. Care to try again?
Act 9:31 (Transliteration)
aye men oon ekklaysiaye kath olays tays ioodayeas kaye galilayeas kaye samarayas aycon ayraynayn oikodomoomenaye kaye poryoomenaye tow fobow too kurioo kaye tay paraklaysay too agioo pnyoomatos eplaythunonto (russ.org/gtb/luke.html#a9)

From this text, we can see the Greek word “kath olays” which is rendered “Catholic” in modern English and the word “ekklaysiaye” which becomes “ecclesia” in English and is commonly translated as “church”.

**εκκλησια καθ****᾽ **ὁλης = ekklaysiaye kath olays = “the church throughout all” = Catholic Church.

But setting aside the minor point of whether or not “Catholic Church” appears in the Bible, we have this:

Earliest Use of the Name “Catholic Church”

The early Church - the Church founded by Christ as promised in Matthew 16:18 - was that which was originally known as the Way (cf. Acts 24:14). Later, those who followed Christ began to be called Christians beginning at Antioch (cf. Acts 11:26).

As early as 107 A.D., that same group was referred to as the “Catholic Church”. In a letter to the Church of Smyrna, Ignatius of Antioch wrote, “You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the Apostles. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, A.D. 107, [8,1])

Notice that Ignatius does not introduce the term “Catholic Church”; instead he uses it in a manner suggesting that the name was already in use and familiar to his audience. This further suggests that the name, Catholic Church, had to have been coined much earlier in order to have achieved wide circulation by the time of this writing. That means that the Christian assembly was probably calling itself the Catholic Church during the lifetime of the last Apostle, John, who died near the end of the first century.

The Catholic Church began with Peter and the Apostles and continued without interruption or cessation through their disciples (Ignatius, Irenaeus, Polycarp, Clement, Justin Martyr, etc.) down to the present day.

As a side note, it is interesting that the believers in Antioch coined both terms still in use today: “Christian” and “Catholic Church”.

Finally, one has to ask this question:

What is the earliest use of the name, “Lutheran Church”?

:rotfl:
 
Respectfully - could your understanding of what Jesus means when He says “church” be just a little bit biased?
And if you therefore assume what you’re trying to prove (that the RC Church is the church founded by Jesus), you run into a nice medieval hermeneutic circle, where you already know what the truth is, then reads the Bible in that light, and then uses the Bible to argue your understanding of the truth.

IF the RC Church is the church which Jesus founded, and IF the RC Church is everything else it claims to be, then your logic holds (bringing us back to the hermeneutic circle). If it is not, then it crumbles and falls to the ground with a loud “KABOOOM”. Everything rests on whether or not one imposes a meaning into the text which isn’t even there. I can certainly understand why you’d read those passages in the light of the RC Church, because that’s what you’ve been taught, but please also have the courage to consider the idea that people who think differently aren’t stubborn half-wits who want to decide their own truth. …

Classic failure.
Biased? I honestly don’t think so because I came to this belief while attending and Evangelical Church that I really did not want to leave. Possible it is biased, but isn’t more than likely your understanding is biased as it comes from a man who had a problem with the Church he was a priest in and disagreed with it?

Truly, the question for me became Orhtodox or Catholic. Because you are right, IF the Catholic Church is the Church founded was the question, one that I feel was answered for me. Scripture certainly promises things about Christ’s Church. I wanted those promises and looked for the Church that had them. Historically, that left me 2.

Please consider that I NEVER considered you a half-wit at all. I have utmost respect for Lutherans. I am deeply grateful that the Christian Churches I was in were non-sacramental ones because the big reason I came to the Catholic Church was the Eucharist and I have no idea what/where I would be if I had been in a sacramental church.

Understand that I recieved most all of my bible study from fundamentalist churches that most thought the Catholic Church was the “whore of Babylon”. My lens was not “Catholic” at all. From the moment of my altar call in a Nazarene Church, I would ask the Holy Spirit to lead me to all truth before I read my bible never knowing that one day it would lead me to the Catholic Church and friends that I had made no longer would consider me Christian. My heart still weeps over this.

And many here at CA forums are converts or reverts who the bulk of their bible studies were done in non-Catholic settings before coming to or back to the Catholic Church, including Church Militant, the one who started this thread. Respectfully, you need to put away some of your preconcieved notions and assumptions especially about what you think I think of you.

Your sister in Christ,
Maria
 
See my point? Your argument is flawed. And asking me to point out where in Scripture it says that the RC understanding is incorrect, and claiming that it’s true because I’m unable to do so, is like me asking you to point out where in Scripture it says that Jesus didn’t meet up with a couple of little green men, and then assuming that He did, because you cannot prove otherwise.

Utter nonsense.
Charitably presented as usual, LutheranDK. :rolleyes:

Let me ask you this question: Is it reasonable for Catholics to ask Protestants to show us where the Bible itself teaches sola scriptura?

If not, why not?
 
"Catholic" is not a name, period.
It is a subtraction of two words.
The “assertion” is true - there IS no mention of the RC Church in the BIble - and Acts 9 does not speak of it. What we have here is a classic hermeneutic circle. You already have the answers, then twists the Bible to fit with those answers, and then claim that the Bible supports them.
**Well, I ain’t buying.**Really?..(last comment as this is off topic.) If what you say is true then why does one of the earliest disciples of the last of the apostles (St. Ignatius of Antioch) use it just that way?

Let’s look at what he wrote to the church at Smyrna less than 10 years after the death of his personal friend and teacher St. John the Evangelist.
CHAP. VIII.–LET NOTHING BE DONE WITHOUT THE BISHOP.

See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out[through their office] the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper(18) Eucharist, which is[administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude[of the people] also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude[of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.
 
Okay…so where are these scriptures that conclusively tell us that everything we believe and practice has to be found in its pages?

It seems unthinkable that people who believe in this aspect of Sola Scriptura cannot provide the scriptures that clearly teach it when they themselves have made it the virtual foundational doctrine of their faith.
 
“Catholic” is not a name, period. It is a subtraction of two words.
The “assertion” is true - there IS no mention of the RC Church in the BIble - and Acts 9 does not speak of it. What we have here is a classic hermeneutic circle. You already have the answers, then twists the Bible to fit with those answers, and then claim that the Bible supports them.
Well, I ain’t buying.
The Martyrdom of Polycarp

“When at last he had finished his prayer, in which he remembered all who had met with him ant any time, both small and great, both those with and those without renown, and the whole Catholic Church throughout the world.” (The Martyrdom of Polycarp, 8:1, [A.D. 156]).

“And certainly the most admirable Polycarp was one of these [elect], in whose times among us he showed himself an apostolic and prophetic teacher and bishop of the Catholic Church in Smyrna.”(The Martyrdom of Polycarp, 16:2, [A.D. 156]).

Irenaeus

The Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said (Against Heresies 1:10 [A.D. 189]).

Augustine

“We must hold to the Christian religion and to communication in her Church, which is Catholic and which is called Catholic not only by her own members but even by all her enemies. When heretics or the adherents of schisms talk about her, not among themselves but with strangers, willy-nilly they call her nothing else but Catholic. They will not be understood unless they distinguish her by this name, which the whole world employs in her regard.”(The True Religion 7:12, [A.D. 390]).

"[T]he very name of Catholic . . . belongs to this Church alone . . . so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house" (Against the Letter of Mani Called `The Foundation’ 4:5 [397 A.D.]).
 
Through the Immaculate Heart,

To whom it may concern,

not everything is in the Bible. If you look through the pages in fact, it does not even telly uo that that everything is contained in it. In fact it teaches that not everything is in it. John says"Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of his disciples, which are not written in this book. But these are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God: and that believing, you may have life in his name" John 20:30-31.

See? It implies that not everything is in the Bible!

Through the Immaculate Heart.
 
LutheranDK:

I posted this earlier, before you entered the discussion. With your entrance, it is even more to the point, so I will repeat it here. Your reponse(s) are eagerly anticipated.

The Bible does not state all that Christ did while onearth - it even says so in its pages. The canon of the Bible was not even finalized, agreed upon, and approved until the 4th century - by Catholics, mind you. The New Testament you and Lutherans possess was given to you by the Catholic Church, inspired by God (Luther himself admitted so). Yes, the Catholic Church gave Protestants the Bible. Luther thanked them for it by removing books which did not jibe with his view on things (Macabees - Purgatory). He wanted to remove James (“faith without works is dead”) due to his belief that humans are “dunghills covered with snow” and are incapable of “doing” (works) good. Hence, the “faith alone” argument. Nowhere in the Bible is this statement to be found, except in James, where it is refuted. Indeed, Luther’s German translation actually inserted the word “alone” to suit his needs. Again, this was just a man making the rules up along the way to fit his own earthly vision - against that of God. Subsequent reformers are just as guilty, because they branched off of Luther’s branch - to each his own.

Protestants - beginning with Mr. Luther - have hacked away at the Bible over the years by removing entire books, distorting it through terrible translations, etc. Heck, now you can buy Joyce Meyer’s interpretation of the Bible if her translation fits your particular worldview. If not, simply get another translation that does. This is not Christianity, my friend. This is not Truth. This is, however, confusion. The Bible was given to you by God, through the Catholic Church, which spread His truth throughout the world for centuries before a Bible was even written. He not only gave us the Bible through the Catholic Church, but the Catholic Church to serve as your scriptural interpreter and teacher, as well. There can be only one Truth, not tens of thousands of competing visions of Truth. Please come to understand this.

The Catholic Church (not church, mind you) is Holy and divine. It is not corrupt, and cannot be so. People within the Church can be - and are. The Church itself is pure, as it is Christ’s Church. The Church has lasted 2000 years. It has lasted longer than any other human institution or government. And it will continue to do so. It will be here long after all others are gone. Christ said the gates of hell would not prevail against it. They have not, and will not. Only such divine protection can account for the Church’s survival against endless attacks from within and without. This divine protection will ensure it’s continued survival and growth. Indeed, we just added 400,00 members last week, likely to swell to millions more in the months and weeks to come as our Anglican brothers and sisters flee man-made religion to come home to Christ’s Church (no offense to my Anglican brothers and sisters, but it is the truth). In the near future, many Lutherans will do the same, as they see the folly in man-made religion.

Our friend Mr. Luther headed up a group of people who were upset and bitter over legitimate wrongs and practices taking place within the Church, being done by people within the Church. Rather than reform the Church (again, not church) from within, Luther was cursed with pride and his new practice now bears his - a mortal man’s - own name. This is why Lutheranism is dwindling away, and will be virtually gone within the next 40/50 years, certainly within the USA, maybe a little later elsewhere. It is a man’s vision of how he wanted things to be, not how Christ wanted things to be. It was doomed from the start. Aforementioned Anglicanism - formed when a king was not allowed an anullment - is dying, as well.

Man-made religion will not cut it. It will rot. As far as “… (The Bible)” being a “pillar and support of the truth; it not even difficult to see God entrusted a body of believers to preserve his truth and to use that truth to edifiy and teach and practice his truth”, who on earth among our feuding, conflicted, contradictory, and self-righteous Protestant brethren is to say what the Bible means? On whose authority do you all rely? The Pentacostal down the street, who believes differently than you, differently from the Baptist, differently from the Episcopal, differently from the 7th Day Adventist, different from the “non-denominational”, different from the Methodist, different from the Assembly of God, different from the…? You get the point (hopefully). It doesn’t end, and never will. God is not the author of this confusion. Protestants often argue that Catholics allow a man to come between them and God when they confess to a priest. What malarkey. Protestants - all, each and every one, of Protestants - have done so. Luther, Calvin, Wesley, Knox, on and on. Each with their own “Biblical teaching.”

Protestantism can be boiled down to one’s own interpretation of the text, which is why the reformers have been reformed, and reformed, and reformed, and will always be reformed. Indeed, the truest form of Protestantism is one man, alone with a Bible, understanding it as he sees fit, seeing others as confused and wrong, while believing what he reads (if he can read, comprehend, etc.) as the True Word.

Christ gave humanity a teacher - the Catholic Church. Eventually, most will realize this (as I hope you do) and will come home.
 
“One does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes forth from the mouth of God.” - Matt. 4:4

There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.” - John 21:25

The first passage says that man *lives *by *every *word Jesus said. The second passage says Jesus did many things that are not recorded in Scripture. Thus, extra-Biblical Traditions only found in the Church He founded.
 
“One does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes forth from the mouth of God.” - Matt. 4:4

There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.” - John 21:25

The first passage says that man *lives *by *every *word Jesus said. The second passage says Jesus did many things that are not recorded in Scripture. Thus, extra-Biblical Traditions only found in the Church He founded.
We can also add this Lampo:

“He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.” Luke 10:16

That is, in effect, saying that the words of those whom Jesus sent, in their capacity as shepherds of the faithful, are the words of Jesus Christ Himself.

And he who rejects the shepherds sent by Jesus Christ are also rejecting Jesus Christ Himself.
 
The authority of our Church is what gave you Scripture.

What is the pillar and bulwark of truth?
A. Scripture
B. the Church
C. the Pope
D. each individual

What has the promise of the Holy Spirit to be guided into all truth?
A. Scripture
B. the Church
C. the Pope
D. each individual
I’ll be sure to tell God, when I see Him, that He was wrong that the church was not built on Christ, the foundation- and the laying of such by the prophets and the apostles. I will also tell Him that He needed to add to those whom the Holy spirit leads, for you were wrong about that as well God. :rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top