J
joandarc2008
Guest
For that matter where is the word Bible found in the Bible?
- Status
B
benidict
Guest
come to think of it, is the listing of the books that belong in the bible found in the bible? 
excellent point you make Joandarc. i cant find it in mine…peace 
K
KathleenGee
Guest
Yes…where does the Bible say point to the Bible…very good point!
Jesus did not hand out bibles…if he did…would it even help???
There would be all sorts of disputes on the meaning of this word and that as their use coincides with their use to our own personal experience…
Words…tower of Babel.
Jesus did not hand out bibles…if he did…would it even help???
There would be all sorts of disputes on the meaning of this word and that as their use coincides with their use to our own personal experience…
Words…tower of Babel.
G
Genesius
Guest
Apryl Wrote: “Not only that, taking scripture (in particular VERSES) as if they are isolated leads to ruin. One must consider the Chapter that is being read… the verses before and after what is quoted.”
As a graduate from a Protestant Bible College I would also add the following that should be considered as well:
As a graduate from a Protestant Bible College I would also add the following that should be considered as well:
- Context of Book or Letter with Chapter, as well as verse.
- Context of culture addressed to.
- Context of human author’s background.
- Intended readers.
- Date of the letter
- Purpose of the Book or Letter.
- Both the written and spoken language.
G
Genesius
Guest
Actually, I was just noticing the title of this thread again; “Not Convinced…” Perhaps it should read, “Not Convinced…Nor Ever Will Be”.
It’s obvious that there are both Catholics and Protestants in this thread that are not willing to move on their positions. Understandable. However, I would ask then what is the point of all this? If somebody really wants an answer to a question, and are given a slew of answers, why aren’t they satisfied? An honest inquiry requires an honest answer…not necessarily an agreeable one. If I want to know what the Catholic Church teaches about something, this is a good place to ask. However, if I just want to argue, I would say your not only wasting your time, but everyone else’s in this thread as well.
By the same token, I would say to my Catholic brothers and sisters, if you seriously want to know what a non-Catholic in the thread believes about something just to inquire, ask away. But if you are wanting to argue, again…probably not a very productive use of your time.
Unless someone specifically addresses this post, I think I will graciously bow out from this thread. All good info here, just not willing to waste my time arguing.
Peace.
It’s obvious that there are both Catholics and Protestants in this thread that are not willing to move on their positions. Understandable. However, I would ask then what is the point of all this? If somebody really wants an answer to a question, and are given a slew of answers, why aren’t they satisfied? An honest inquiry requires an honest answer…not necessarily an agreeable one. If I want to know what the Catholic Church teaches about something, this is a good place to ask. However, if I just want to argue, I would say your not only wasting your time, but everyone else’s in this thread as well.
By the same token, I would say to my Catholic brothers and sisters, if you seriously want to know what a non-Catholic in the thread believes about something just to inquire, ask away. But if you are wanting to argue, again…probably not a very productive use of your time.
Unless someone specifically addresses this post, I think I will graciously bow out from this thread. All good info here, just not willing to waste my time arguing.
Peace.
P
pablope
Guest
Then, what else do you seek? In a previous post, I asked you if you wanted to develop a deeper, more fulfilled relationship with Christ, a relationship that is developed outside of reading Christ in the Bible…a unitive relationship of grace, of oneness with Christ. If this is not what you want, and you seem satisfied with a symbolic presence of the Eucharist, and you can do without the graces of priestly confession, then what else is there?
Just keep in mind, from Matthew 7:21 (King James Version)
21Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
or from james 1:26-27 (King James Version)
26If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man’s religion is vain.
27Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.
Or from John 6:56 (King James Version)
56He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and** I in him.**
N
Nicea325
Guest
I admire your efforts,but your interpretations are flawed.First of all,no where does Scripture say everything God ever did and said is binded to the written words alone and that the BIBLE-ALONE is sufficient. In fact, it says quite the opposite:
(NKJV) John 21:25: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.
Footnote from the NKJV: The Gospel of John is truthful,but it is NOT exhaustive.
And notice that 2 Tim 3:15 makes no mention of the Bible-Alone doctrine or belief. It also
makes no mention of the NT and specifically what OT books! And why? Because the Jews had no set canon during St.Paul’s life and ministry. What scriptures is Paul referring to Richard?
R
Richard_Kastner
Guest
I didn’t say you were infallible. I have seen many Catholic posters on this forum that say the CC, the ECF, the catechism of the CC, the pope are all infallible teachers. I can only assume when I see a Catholic expounding on a doctrine as important as the Trinity that they would be availing themselves of this “infallible teaching” deposit. Are you now saying that you don’t avail yourself of this infallible teaching deposit?Well, I never claimed that I am infallible
1Jn.5:7For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
I would agree that we are saved by the grace of God displayed in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. So I guess this whole question of whether or not the doctrine of the Trinity is found in scripture or not is moot.
R
Richard_Kastner
Guest
then let me clarify. the bible alludes to the Triune God. but as my brother pointed out. it is not spelled out clearly. even among your own founders richard, there was a disagreement. E.G. white believed in the Trinity, where as, her husband did not. it is unclear enough from scripture, that going by scripture alone, a person CAN come to the conclusion that the Trinity is a false doctrine. i.e. the Jehovahs Witnesses, or that Jesus and the Father are two distinct personages. i.e. the Mormons. without tradition we would probably still not have a clear teaching of the Trinity. i really dont disagree with my brothers assesment. nor did i claim to teaching the infallible teachings of Rome into the mix. if im going to do so, i will quote from the Catechism. nice try though. Peace
I would ask you both, do you think the doctrine of the Trinity, which is taught in the bible BTW, is necessary for our salvation. I mean could a person come to an acceptance of Jesus as Lord of their lives, be baptised, and be assured of eternal life if they remain faithful to Him and not be aware of the doctrine of the Trinity?
N
Nicea325
Guest
The doctrine of the Trinity is encapsulated in scripture,but it is not explicit. The above verse does not define nor explain the three distinct persons of the Trinity. The Bible did not formulate or explain the complex doctrine of the Trinity,it was the sole responsibility of the Church through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The Catholic Church is THE church which gave us the dcotrine of the Trinity as she did many others.
You are simply injecting pure conjecture and want to present it as proof or facts.
R
regression
Guest
The Church teaches the Trinity is three distinct Persons in on God, and that is the infallible statement being made. I don’t think anyone has an issue with that statement. Now how explicit / implicit it is in scripture, I do not believe the Church has definitely (infallibly) said one way or the other.
scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p2.htm#253
But that doesn’t state there are three persons that are distinct from one another in one God, which is what the Church states.
B
benidict
Guest
I would ask you both, do you think the doctrine of the Trinity, which is taught in the bible BTW, is necessary for our salvation. I mean could a person come to an acceptance of Jesus as Lord of their lives, be baptised, and be assured of eternal life if they remain faithful to Him and not be aware of the doctrine of the Trinity?yes Richard, and also baptizing in the NAME of the Father Son and Holy Spirit would be another. but remember my friend, they did not have a new testament at this time. they were taught this essential doctrine through the teaching and preaching of the apostles. a Jehovahs witness would look at these verses and conclude that the Father and Son are one in purpose. and the Holy Spirit is an impersonal force. lets say you were living at a time when the new testament was not available, nor in existence. say 40 a.d. how would you prove the Trinity? the gnostics certainly didnt believe in it. this was one of the first errors that the Church fought so hard against. the arians didnt believe in the Trinity. again. this was taken care of by the council of nicea. and not too nicely i might add. and at the beginning of that council, there still was no new testament cannon formulated. the earliest of Christians did have this doctrine. taught by the doctrine and tradition of the apostles. the thief on the cross was not aware of this doctrine. but he was faithful in what he was given. all was made clear to him upon his death, and entrance into paradise. he who is faithful with little, will be given more. hope this helps. if im misunderstanding your question. please rephrase and we will try again. its late in iraq, and im going to bed. very glad we are conversing again though. peacethen let me clarify. the bible alludes to the Triune God. but as my brother pointed out. it is not spelled out clearly. even among your own founders richard, there was a disagreement. E.G. white believed in the Trinity, where as, her husband did not. it is unclear enough from scripture, that going by scripture alone, a person CAN come to the conclusion that the Trinity is a false doctrine. i.e. the Jehovahs Witnesses, or that Jesus and the Father are two distinct personages. i.e. the Mormons. without tradition we would probably still not have a clear teaching of the Trinity. i really dont disagree with my brothers assesment. nor did i claim to teaching the infallible teachings of Rome into the mix. if im going to do so, i will quote from the Catechism. nice try though. Peace
R
Richard_Kastner
Guest
I offered no interpretations.
So you are saying that there is something that is offered in your oral tradition that is necessary for our salvation that is not contained in the bible. What would that be, Nicea?
Your saying that the Jews did not have the Torah in Pauls time?
2Tim3
16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
This verse says all scripture is inspired by God. That would include all of the new testament Right?
R
Richard_Kastner
Guest
To my question
You said
Meaning that you believe that they could be saved without ever having heard of the Trinity. Then you say
You are saying here that the doctrine of the Trinity is essential. You need to clarify your view. Do you think that it is essential to our salvation or not?
R
Richard_Kastner
Guest
Really? You don’t think that this statement 1Jn.5:7For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. says that there are three distinct persons in one God. If you don’t think that this explains the Trinity, there is no explaination that would satisfy you.
R
regression
Guest
A
Apryl
Guest
… and the STYLE of writing of the books.As a graduate from a Protestant Bible College I would also add the following that should be considered as well:
These are just a few considerations, if one is going to truly understand one passage or verse.
- Context of Book or Letter with Chapter, as well as verse.
- Context of culture addressed to.
- Context of human author’s background.
- Intended readers.
- Date of the letter
- Purpose of the Book or Letter.
- Both the written and spoken language.
We have the Laws, History, Prophesy, Prose, the Gospels and others… (I didn’t go to Bible College, and my memory is going fast)
G
Genesius
Guest
I know I said I wasn’t going to chime in, but I just had to on this…
. I had heard from a convert friend of mine that this verse was actually added later by Luther. Not sure, though. 
G
Genesius
Guest
Yes…thanks for that, Apryl. I think that is an important point, because oftentimes people will take something out of one style and try to apply it to another. For instance, to take something out of a historical book, or even poetry and try to make doctrine of it, even though that was not the intention of the writer. Yes, one might find an element of doctrine in some of those styles, but to take for instance, one of David’s Psalms where he is simply pouring out his heart…his feelings…right or wrong, (“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me!”, even though prophetic, it was originally the cry of David) and say, “See, God forsakes us.” would be a mistake.… and the STYLE of writing of the books.
We have the Laws, History, Prophesy, Prose, the Gospels and others… (I didn’t go to Bible College, and my memory is going fast)
Just an observation…didn’t mean to go on about it…LOL.
N
Nicea325
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
I admire your efforts,but your interpretations are flawed.
Quote:
First of all,no where does Scripture say everything God ever did and said is binded to the written words alone and that the BIBLE-ALONE is sufficient. In fact, it says quite the opposite:
(NKJV) John 21:25: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.
Footnote from the NKJV: The Gospel of John is truthful,but it is NOT exhaustive.
Second,do you evven understand [T]radition…Richard?
Tradition in its broad sense provides normative understandings of biblical teaching. These normative understandings of Scripture are themselves Tradition in yet another sense of the word. For example, the Arians of the fourth century and the Jehovah’s Witnesses of today interpret the New Testament as teaching that, as the pre-existent Word, Jesus is inferior to God the Father, not equal to him. This interpretation is incompatible with the Tradition of the Church in its broad sense, which affirms the equality of the Word and God the Father. Tradition in its broad sense, in turn, provides a normative sense of the biblical faith to properly interpret and apply the texts misused by the Arians and the Witnesses.
In other words, Tradition allows us to say that, whatever the Bible means when it talks about Jesus as the pre-existent Word, it doesn’t mean what the Arians taught and the Witnesses still teach. Authentic Tradition has ruled out this interpretation.
Quote:
And notice that 2 Tim 3:15 makes no mention of the Bible-Alone doctrine or belief. It also
makes no mention of the NT and specifically what OT books! And why? Because the Jews had no set canon during St.Paul’s life and ministry. What scriptures is Paul referring to Richard?
Originally Posted by Nicea325
I admire your efforts,but your interpretations are flawed.
Of course you did. You gave all those verses and believe it supports the Bible-Alone or else we would not be having this discussion.
Quote:
First of all,no where does Scripture say everything God ever did and said is binded to the written words alone and that the BIBLE-ALONE is sufficient. In fact, it says quite the opposite:
(NKJV) John 21:25: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.
Footnote from the NKJV: The Gospel of John is truthful,but it is NOT exhaustive.
First show me Richard where the Bible recorded everything God said and did and binded to **written ** Words alone? Second,where does Jesus or the Apostles teach the Bible is the FINAL aribter and authority? I beg to differ:
- Did Jesus Christ found the Bible or the Church?
Does the Bible say it was the Bible? No, it says He founded His Church, Matthew 16:18. - What is the pillar and foundation of the truth?
Does the Bible say it is the Bible? No, it says it is the Church, 1Timothy 3:15.
This verse also tells us that the Church was already in existence before 1Timothy was written. - Who or what is the final authority?
Does the Bible say it is the Bible? No, it says it is the Church, Matthew 18:15-18. - Who is the teacher of all the wisdom of GOD?
Does the Bible say it is the Bible? No, it says it is the Church, Ephesians 3:10.
Second,do you evven understand [T]radition…Richard?
Tradition in its broad sense provides normative understandings of biblical teaching. These normative understandings of Scripture are themselves Tradition in yet another sense of the word. For example, the Arians of the fourth century and the Jehovah’s Witnesses of today interpret the New Testament as teaching that, as the pre-existent Word, Jesus is inferior to God the Father, not equal to him. This interpretation is incompatible with the Tradition of the Church in its broad sense, which affirms the equality of the Word and God the Father. Tradition in its broad sense, in turn, provides a normative sense of the biblical faith to properly interpret and apply the texts misused by the Arians and the Witnesses.
In other words, Tradition allows us to say that, whatever the Bible means when it talks about Jesus as the pre-existent Word, it doesn’t mean what the Arians taught and the Witnesses still teach. Authentic Tradition has ruled out this interpretation.
Quote:
And notice that 2 Tim 3:15 makes no mention of the Bible-Alone doctrine or belief. It also
makes no mention of the NT and specifically what OT books! And why? Because the Jews had no set canon during St.Paul’s life and ministry. What scriptures is Paul referring to Richard?
No I did not say such a thing. And did all the Jews simply follow the Torah? Nope! The Pharisees did not stick only to the Torah as the Saducees did. Hence,tell me exactly what fixed canon did the Jews use during the time of Paul? What books were considered canonical and others not? Once again, 2 Tim 3:15 was not written in defense of the Bible-Alone that is pure conjecture on your part.
Exactly Richard! That verses says ALL,not ONLY Scripture is inspired by God. Tell me Richard where Jesus taught ONLY scripture would be inspired? Wrong! 2 Tim 3:16 cannot include all of the NT because it was not even complete. You are telling me that by the time Paul wrote Timothy the NT was complete and considered canonical?
- Status