Not Convinced.....

[rikkk1958]

The only means of salvation is Jesus Christ and His sacrifice, not the bible. The bible only tells us of Jesus. Not our own interpretation. the Holy Spirit’s.

This confirms that you want Jesus to save you but you do not want to obey Him.

We don’t want you lost, we want you to be part of His Church. Although we can not judge you, the scriptures clearly tells you about the Church He wants built so that you can partake with His body and blood, to be in communion with Him.

You want your salvation from what the scripture says but you do not want to obey

You know what they are and they are what most protestants despised. Mary, purgatory, etc.

The doctrines of the Church are all supported by the Scriptures. Witnesses who walked with the characters in Jesus time believed what they saw and proclaimed it to be worthy for doctrine. Remember, they are the ones that the scriptures manifested to have received the Holy Spirit.

Nothing is blasphemous when it comes to the truth. The Divinity of the Church is true and if you don’t believe then you are denying Jesus. I know you will argue with this but unfortunately the scriptures said so.

 

[faithfully]

Well I’m glad that your opinion on her would not change. And that is exactly what im talking about. Meaning it doesn’t matter if she is or isnt a sinner, because she will always be held high.

As for whorshipping mary, I hope you’re not talking about me, because countless times I have said that it is not worship, but just prayer. There is a difference. So if you’re talking to somebody else, thats one thing, but it better not have been me.

Not at you… General statement… for those that can’t wrap their head around it. I can’t tell you how many people think we worship her like a God, and it’s what they tell others…

 

[BlueShadow123]

Not at you… General statement… for those that can’t wrap their head around it. I can’t tell you how many people think we worship her like a God, and it’s what they tell others…

People think that because of all the people bowing to statues of Mary, or pictures of her, or carrying around rosaries and things like that.

They just don’t understand why alot of catholics do that. So its good that you explain it to them.

 

[Dorothy]

Genesius, when you said that Mary is the Ark of the new Covenant as well as the new Eve, and having a role in our salvation, that sparked some interest. I am not necesarrily saying you are wrong, but do you have some verses that sort of justify/back those ideas up? If you do, I would love to see them as to get a better understanding. Thanks!

How about these verses?

youtube.com/watch?v=Wo5ifS9SYwk

 

[Richard_Kastner]

:banghead: Ok? So there is nothing you have to say to it? There’s no counter point(s) you can make? It would seem you have been “defeated”, why can’t you make a counter point?

Here’s the post I replied to

Originally Posted by zach dunn
The point is not exactly “my way of believing in the Bible is better than yours”, what you’re not understanding is that because you believe in sola Scriptura, you cannot even have a Bible to believe in. Do you understand that? The funny thing is that this conversation is probably of more concern to you than your conversation about Mary.

You make this very strange statement that because I believe in SS or the fact that all the information I need for my salvation is contained in scripture, that I cannot have a bible to believe in. I just have no idea how to answer that statement. It just doesn’t make any sense, at least to me, so I said Ok. What do you want me to do argue with this? If you believe that because I believe in SS I don’t have a bible, Ok!

And for the record, I never expected you to jump up and convert to Catholicism;

You did ask me why I’m still a Protestant?

I only wanted you to see that the only reason you have a Bible is because of the infallible Magisterium of the Catholic Church which is infallible to this day

Thank you for your opinion.

. . . that’s what I wanted out of this conversation but it seems that you’re not even paying attention to it because “it’s a waste of time”.

Oh, I’m paying attention.

 

[zach_dunn]

You make this very strange statement that because I believe in SS or the fact that all the information I need for my salvation is contained in scripture, that I cannot have a bible to believe in. I just have no idea how to answer that statement. It just doesn’t make any sense, at least to me, so I said Ok. What do you want me to do argue with this? If you believe that because I believe in SS I don’t have a bible, Ok!

Ok, I’ll try to restate it. I asked you what constitutes all Scripture and how do you know. You replied that the Old and New Testaments make up the Bible which is the Word of God. Now, to restate my question: how do you know which books belong in either testament? How do you yourself know which books belong? I didn’t necessarily expect you to say the table of contents, but you did say that you had them basically memorized. What I was trying to get at is that you believe that the table of contents of your personal Bible is the correct list based on authority. This authority could be a parent, or a pastor, whatever. Then the question is, how do they know it’s correct? And the answer would be the same as yours: authority.

This tracing back of authority will inevitably lead back to the Catholic Church, who by the divine guidance of the Holy Spirit discerned canonical from non-canonical works. The point is that an extra-biblical (something outside of the Bible) authority had a direct impact on your salvation. The Bible did not come with a table of contents as I have said already, the Bible came out of the Church. IF you hold to sola Scriptura I do not see how you can have a Bible, because the canon is not given by the Bible. Hopefully that explanation cleared things up a bit? There are many points of contention in this paragraph so if I get another “Ok” I will just assume you have nothing to say.

You did ask me why I’m still a Protestant?

Yes but being not Protestant doesn’t automatically make you Catholic, right? It was sarcasm anyway, I was just pretending like I had changed your life or something.

Thank you for your opinion.

And here is one of those debatable points. If you think it’s only my opinion, tell me why it’s wrong!

 

[Genesius]

Zach wrote:
I only wanted you to see that the only reason you have a Bible is because of the infallible Magisterium of the Catholic Church which is infallible to this day

Richard Replied: Thank you for your opinion.

My Reply: I could see where Richard could say “infallible” is an opinion, but the Catholic Church in general being the reason he has a Bible is actually not mere opinion, but historical fact. I don’t see how anyone can call that someone’s “opinion”.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Ok, I’ll try to restate it. I asked you what constitutes all Scripture and how do you know. You replied that the Old and New Testaments make up the Bible which is the Word of God. Now, to restate my question: how do you know which books belong in either testament? How do you yourself know which books belong? I didn’t necessarily expect you to say the table of contents, but you did say that you had them basically memorized. What I was trying to get at is that you believe that the table of contents of your personal Bible is the correct list based on authority. This authority could be a parent, or a pastor, whatever. Then the question is, how do they know it’s correct? And the answer would be the same as yours: authority.

This tracing back of authority will inevitably lead back to the Catholic Church, who by the divine guidance of the Holy Spirit discerned canonical from non-canonical works. The point is that an extra-biblical (something outside of the Bible) authority had a direct impact on your salvation. The Bible did not come with a table of contents as I have said already, the Bible came out of the Church.

See, it’s this last statement that I have a problem with. You don’t tace the ancestry of the bible back far enough. The bible is NOT THE WORD OF THE CHURCH. IT’S THE WORD OF GOD. This arrogant attitude that the bible comes from the church is just not true. It comes from God.

IF you hold to sola Scriptura I do not see how you can have a Bible, because the canon is not given by the Bible. Hopefully that explanation cleared things up a bit? There are many points of contention in this paragraph so if I get another “Ok” I will just assume you have nothing to say.

Zach, the bible I have has a table of contents (canon). So your statement that the canon is not given by the bible is just not true.

And here is one of those debatable points. If you think it’s only my opinion, tell me why it’s wrong!

Didn’t say you were wrong, merely thanked you for your opinion. In my opinion the magisterium, whoever that is is not infallible.

 

[benidict]

People think that because of all the people bowing to statues of Mary, or pictures of her, or carrying around rosaries and things like that.

They just don’t understand why alot of catholics do that. So its good that you explain it to them.

depending on who your trying to explain it to my friend… it falls on deaf ears. thank you for your open mindedness and understanding. Peace to you, and may you have a blessed Christmas.

 

[benidict]

See, it’s this last statement that I have a problem with. You don’t tace the ancestry of the bible back far enough. The bible is NOT THE WORD OF THE CHURCH. IT’S THE WORD OF GOD. This arrogant attitude that the bible comes from the church is just not true. It comes from God.

Zach, the bible I have has a table of contents (canon). So your statement that the canon is not given by the bible is just not true.

Didn’t say you were wrong, merely thanked you for your opinion. In my opinion the magisterium, whoever that is is not infallible.

then it begs a question. how come my BIBLE claims that it is the CHURCH that is the bulwark of truth? it certainly states that scripture is useful. but is it needed for salvation? im pretty sure, many who are redeemed and being saved cannot read, much less get ahold of a Bible. how do they stay on the straight and narrow road without a bible Richard? Peace

 

[pablope]

See, it’s this last statement that I have a problem with. You don’t tace the ancestry of the bible back far enough. The bible is NOT THE WORD OF THE CHURCH. IT’S THE WORD OF GOD.

This arrogant attitude that the bible comes from the church is just not true. It comes from God.

I think nobody disputes that it is the word of God. Human authors were used, and I am sure you know this already. But you cannot seem to be accept the fact , that at least, the NT was written by Catholics, for Catholics, and was compiled together with the OT for use by Catholics, as originally intended.

 

[KathleenGee]

People have to be careful of using the Bible as an entity of its own.

Judeo-Catholic Christianity see Scripture as the Word of God in the gathering of its people, written by people, and authored by Him.

Revelations ended the full Revelation of Jesus Christ. After Revelations then comes the reality of living out now this fullness of Revelation. Who is now going to truthfully and accurately interpret the Word of God than Christ’s chosen.

So the next movement to follow the fullness and completion of the Word of God is Christ’s Church. The Church is the next movement in salvation, not the book of the Bible…people living the Word of God with the Sacraments.

 

[Skeptic92]

See, it’s this last statement that I have a problem with. You don’t tace the ancestry of the bible back far enough. The bible is NOT THE WORD OF THE CHURCH. IT’S THE WORD OF GOD. This arrogant attitude that the bible comes from the church is just not true. It comes from God.

I can trace the Bible back to its first creation as a compiled book, before the Councils of Rome and Carthage (im sure there is one more but its name escapes me) there was NUMEROUS “inspired gospels”, the Gospel of Judas Iscariate, The Gospel according to Mary, the apocalypse of Peter. untill the Council had been called by the Catholic Church, there was no Bible, there was collections of scripture that laity and clergy thought was inspired, but whether or not that is true, wasn’t confirmed untill the Councils of Rome and Carthage, that compiled a 72 Book Canon of the Bible, reaffirmed and sealed by the Church to counter the reformation at the Council of Trent.

Your Bible is only here because of the Catholic Church, which compiled the Canon between the 4th-6th Century, culminating with the translation of Scripture into Latin by St Jerome to the Latin Vulgate.

Zach, the bible I have has a table of contents (canon). So your statement that the canon is not given by the bible is just not true.

Which book of the Bible has the contents page ? I can’t think of one, i remember these:

[bibledrb]John 21:25[/bibledrb]

[bibledrb]1 Timothy 3:15[/bibledrb]

 

[placido]

See, it’s this last statement that I have a problem with. You don’t tace the ancestry of the bible back far enough. The bible is NOT THE WORD OF THE CHURCH. IT’S THE WORD OF GOD. This arrogant attitude that the bible comes from the church is just not true. It comes from God.

Yes, the books of the Bible are God-breathed; they come from God. But there is another historic fact you can’t ignore. The Bible is God’s Word yes, but who compiled the 73 (or 66) books was the Catholic Church, guided by the Holy Spirit. Unconfortable may, but a historic fact.

placido

 

[Nicea325]

Yes, the books of the Bible are God-breathed; they come from God. But there is another historic fact you can’t ignore. The Bible is God’s Word yes, but who compiled the 73 (or 66) books was the Catholic Church, guided by the Holy Spirit. Unconfortable may, but a historic fact.

placido

Richard simply cannot swallow his pride and admit the CC is the one which gave us one nicely compiled Bible. And how? Through the guidance of the HS working through the CATHOLIC bishops and councils. I doubt Richard denies the forefathers of the U.S. gave us the Constitution…

 

[Richard_Kastner]

People have to be careful of using the Bible as an entity of its own.

Judeo-Catholic Christianity see Scripture as the Word of God in the gathering of its people, written by people, and authored by Him.

Revelations ended the full Revelation of Jesus Christ. After Revelations then comes the reality of living out now this fullness of Revelation. Who is now going to truthfully and accurately interpret the Word of God than Christ’s chosen.

So the next movement to follow the fullness and completion of the Word of God is Christ’s Church. The Church is the next movement in salvation, not the book of the Bible…people living the Word of God with the Sacraments.

Are you saying that God will send no more prophets Kathleen? If so what do you base this statement on?

 

[zach_dunn]

See, it’s this last statement that I have a problem with. You don’t tace the ancestry of the bible back far enough. The bible is NOT THE WORD OF THE CHURCH. IT’S THE WORD OF GOD. This arrogant attitude that the bible comes from the church is just not true. It comes from God.

Ah, this is what I was looking for. Now you have opened up a big can of worms, so to speak. Now let me ask you some more questions:

1. Which Bible version do you have, and when is the copyright?
2. Do you think that your Bible version just fell from the sky into the hands of Christians?

Let me inform you: books as we have them today did not exist in the first century or second century or third century or any century until the past two hundred years or so. And on top of that, places like Germany have books that don’t even contain a table of contents! So, it would seem obvious that the people who actually wrote the books of the Bible didn’t all write them at the same time then put them together and call it the “Bible”.

The books of the New Testament started to be written in the 40s and the last one wasn’t finished until (about) the year 100 AD. Between these times there were also works that were written that weren’t included in the Bible. The Church was the entity given the responsibility of discovering which books were authentically inspired by God, with His assistance.

You are right to say that the Bible is God’s Word (so is Tradition, but that’s off topic and not to the point), but you are wrong to say it’s not from the Church. All the writers of the New Testament were members of the Church and were writing for the Church, and it was the Church who was given the wisdom to know which books were and weren’t authentic. To say my attitude is arrogant is false as well, historical fact is only arrogance to those who refuse to believe it, no?

There were three meetings that dealt with the cannon in the early centuries of the Church: the Synod of Rome (382), the Council of Hippo (393), and the Council of Carthage (397). All three of these councils declared the same canon, and that had been the canon of the Christian Bible for the next 1100 years. During these 1100 years, there weren’t Bibles created with Tables of Contents (as far as I am aware, please correct me if I’m wrong). How did anyone know which books belonged in the Bible? Because the Church had been guided by God to discern the true canon. This is the canon from which you declare you glean all the knowledge you need to be saved, thus giving the Catholic Church responsibility for your salvation . . . paradoxical, isn’t it?

Zach, the bible I have has a table of contents (canon). So your statement that the canon is not given by the bible is just not true.

Really? Can you not think about the 21st/20th century Bible you read today? I’m talking about the text of the Bible, starting with Genesis 1:1 going to Revelations 22:21. There is not a passage in between those verses that gives a list of books that belong in the Bible. Think back, imagine you’re living in the 5th century, do you think the Bible had a table of contents back then?

Didn’t say you were wrong, merely thanked you for your opinion. In my opinion the magisterium, whoever that is is not infallible.

If you hold a contrary opinion, how can you not think that I’m wrong? Also, if you don’t believe the Magisterium to be infallible, you can’t tell if your table of contents is correct . . . so you could be believing things that are damnable in the sight of God. As I said before, for those of you who hold to sola Scriptura, your salvation necessarily depends on God through the Catholic Church. Just some food for thought.

 

[zach_dunn]

Are you saying that God will send no more prophets Kathleen? If so what do you base this statement on?

Hmmm, try historic Christian belief and, oh, Jude 3:

Jude 3
Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.

The Christian faith was revealed fully in God’s Son, Jesus Christ. It was given once for all to the world. Do you believe Christ’s revelation wasn’t enough? That it had to be completed by E.G. White or whichever modern prophet you prescribe to?

 

[Richard_Kastner]

1Tim.3
15 if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.(NIV)

then it begs a question. how come my BIBLE claims that it is the CHURCH that is the bulwark of truth?

What’s A pillar and a foundation Ben? Well, they are both archetectual terms. They are used to hold up the main structure, right? Ok what is the main stucture that the church of the living God hold’s up, Ben? Well it says what it is right in the v." the pillar and foundation of the truth" it’s the truth. So what is the truth? Jn.17: 17Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. THE WORD IS THE TRUTH. So what 1Tim3:15 is saying is that one of the functions of God’s church is to uphold the word of God or the bible.

it certainly states that scripture is useful. but is it needed for salvation? im pretty sure, many who are redeemed and being saved cannot read, much less get ahold of a Bible. how do they stay on the straight and narrow road without a bible Richard? Peace

Let me explain once again what my definition of SS is. I’m saying that all the information that I need for my salvation is contained in the bible. Ok, got that? Now God is God and I am not. His ways are far above my ways. He can bring people to a realization of Jesus Christ and His saving sacrifice any way He chooses, but because He chooses to bring people to the realization of Jesus in other ways than the bible is irrelavant to the fact that all the information that I need for my salvation is in the bible.

And BTW 2Tim3:15 states “And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” that SCRIPTURES are able to make us wise unto salvation.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Ah, this is what I was looking for. Now you have opened up a big can of worms, so to speak. Now let me ask you some more questions:

1. Which Bible version do you have, and when is the copyright?
2. Do you think that your Bible version just fell from the sky into the hands of Christians?

Let me inform you: books as we have them today did not exist in the first century or second century or third century or any century until the past two hundred years or so. And on top of that, places like Germany have books that don’t even contain a table of contents! So, it would seem obvious that the people who actually wrote the books of the Bible didn’t all write them at the same time then put them together and call it the “Bible”.

The books of the New Testament started to be written in the 40s and the last one wasn’t finished until (about) the year 100 AD. Between these times there were also works that were written that weren’t included in the Bible. The Church was the entity given the responsibility of discovering which books were authentically inspired by God, with His assistance.

You are right to say that the Bible is God’s Word (so is Tradition, but that’s off topic and not to the point), but you are wrong to say it’s not from the Church. All the writers of the New Testament were members of the Church and were writing for the Church, and it was the Church who was given the wisdom to know which books were and weren’t authentic. To say my attitude is arrogant is false as well, historical fact is only arrogance to those who refuse to believe it, no?

There were three meetings that dealt with the cannon in the early centuries of the Church: the Synod of Rome (382), the Council of Hippo (393), and the Council of Carthage (397). All three of these councils declared the same canon, and that had been the canon of the Christian Bible for the next 1100 years. During these 1100 years, there weren’t Bibles created with Tables of Contents (as far as I am aware, please correct me if I’m wrong). How did anyone know which books belonged in the Bible? Because the Church had been guided by God to discern the true canon. This is the canon from which you declare you glean all the knowledge you need to be saved, thus giving the Catholic Church responsibility for your salvation . . . paradoxical, isn’t it?

Really? Can you not think about the 21st/20th century Bible you read today? I’m talking about the text of the Bible, starting with Genesis 1:1 going to Revelations 22:21. There is not a passage in between those verses that gives a list of books that belong in the Bible. Think back, imagine you’re living in the 5th century, do you think the Bible had a table of contents back then?

If you hold a contrary opinion, how can you not think that I’m wrong? Also, if you don’t believe the Magisterium to be infallible, you can’t tell if your table of contents is correct . . . so you could be believing things that are damnable in the sight of God. As I said before, for those of you who hold to sola Scriptura, your salvation necessarily depends on God through the Catholic Church. Just some food for thought.

Ok