Not enough non catholic here

  • Thread starter Thread starter FrederickOz
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Dear PRmerger, I will try to answer you, but I’m not entirely certain I understand what you are asking.

JWs, as you say, accept the 66 book canon of scripture.
We have few additional traditions, certainly much less than the RC church ( I think, as im no expert on your faith).
Even so, we have our equivalent ‘external authority’, which is the JW source of understanding - our anointed Governing Body.

Beyond this we understand that the Bible itself is enough to completely equip us.

Please tell me if this is a confusing response.

Redle.
 
Dear PRmerger, I will try to answer you, but I’m not entirely certain I understand what you are asking.

JWs, as you say, accept the 66 book canon of scripture.
We have few additional traditions, certainly much less than the RC church ( I think, as im no expert on your faith).
Even so, we have our equivalent ‘external authority’, which is the JW source of understanding - our anointed Governing Body.

Beyond this we understand that the Bible itself is enough to completely equip us.

Please tell me if this is a confusing response.

Redle.
I am not sure if I am understanding you.

Let me ask my question this way: how is it that you know that the Gospel of Mark is inspired? Who told you that it is God’s Word? Why do you believe this authority?
 
Dear PRmerger, I will try to answer you, but I’m not entirely certain I understand what you are asking.

JWs, as you say, accept the 66 book canon of scripture.
We have few additional traditions, certainly much less than the RC church ( I think, as im no expert on your faith).
Even so, we have our equivalent ‘external authority’, which is the JW source of understanding - our anointed Governing Body.

Beyond this we understand that the Bible itself is enough to completely equip us.

Please tell me if this is a confusing response.

Redle.
 
Thanks for the welcome!

Just reading this thread I see phrases unfamiliar to me:
Sacred Traditions
Communion of Saints
Sacraments
Eucharist
Real Presence
Communion

I have much to learn here.

Redle.
 
Hiya, redle:

If you could just answer the question: how is it that you know that the Gospel of Mark is inspired? By whose authority do you declare this to be inspired?
 
Thanks for the welcome!

Just reading this thread I see phrases unfamiliar to me:
Sacred Traditions
Communion of Saints
Sacraments
Eucharist
Real Presence
Communion

I have much to learn here.

Redle.
My understanding as an Anglican Christian:

Sacred Traditions = The faith once delivered to the saints handed down from the Apostles. Anglicanism is based on Scripture, Tradition, and Reason.
Catholics can give their definition. 🙂

Communion of Saints = The whole family of God, the faithful living on the earth and the departed saints in heaven (for Catholics, this includes the souls in Purgatory) bound together in the mystical Body of Christ by sacrament, prayer, and praise.

Sacraments = Outward and visible signs of inward and spiritual grace, given by Christ as sure and certain means by which we receive that grace: Holy Baptism and The Holy Eucharist are the Sacraments given by Christ. Also: Confirmation, Ordination, Holy Matrimony, Reconciliation of a Penitent, and Unction.

Eucharist = Holy Eucharist/The Lord’s Supper/Holy Mass/Divine Liturgy/Holy Communion.**

Real Presence** = Christ is spiritual and materially/physically present the in Mystery of the Holy Eucharist. In the Holy Eucharist, we consume the Body and Blood of Christ.

Communion = Holy Eucharist/The Lord’s Supper/Holy Mass/Divine Liturgy.

That’s the short version. 🙂 I’m really tired.

Anna
 
**I think the problem is the bottom line is this is a Catholic website. People can ask question,but not have an agenda. Some questioning can seem like a non Catholic has an agenda, therefore they are blocked. I might be crazy, but I do believe so people come here questioning everything. Not out of meaness, but questioning their own spirituality.Remember the Catholic Faith teaches it has the Fullness of Truth through the Holy Spirit.That it has Apostolic succession, Tradition. These are hard things for some one who is searching. I believe some times we cut people off, because of misunderstandings in what they are writing. Words on a page, can be different than talking to, a person face to face,seeing the face and body language. Some times we are to quick to judge writings on a page.Remember Catholics believe in the One True Church, so anything else would have to be argumentative.So times people on here are just soul searching and get quickly driven off. I’m not saying this is the chase all the time,but some time. Just an opinion.To many times emotions get the best of us. God Bless **
 
Sincere thanks Anna, for taking time to explain these terms. I certainly didn’t expect anyone to do this for me!

PRMerger, I believe Mark should be considered canonical because it has been so for so long.
Around the late 2nd century there were catalogues of books of the Bible - Irenaeus and Clement for example. During the following 200+ years leading to 397CE there was acceptance of the canon which was formally adopted in the council of Trent.

Guanophore, the reason I believe the Bible equips us is because of 2Tim 3:16-17. By this I’m not saying we do not need a church, but I’m saying we do not need to add to scripture.

redle.
 
Guanophore, the reason I believe the Bible equips us is because of 2Tim 3:16-17. By this I’m not saying we do not need a church, but I’m saying we do not need to add to scripture.

redle.
Thanks for elaborating on that point redle. Can you show me where in this passage it says that the Bible equips believers?

It is curious that you say we do not need to “add to Scripture”. From the Apostolic perspective, Jesus founded the Church, and left all that He taught in the custody of theApostles, making the Church the pillar and ground of the Truth. Then the Church “added” the Scripture, which was never intended to be a complete compendium of the faith. It is an authoritative collection of letters and memoirs that reflect the faith, but is not the Source of our faith. Jesus is our source.
 
From the KJV, 2Tim 3:
16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17
That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

I take “thoroughly furnished” to mean “completely equipped”.
If the scriptures we have do completely equip us, what more do we now need?

I agree that Jesus is the basis of our Christian faith.

I’m sensing you disagree?

Redle.
 
Code:
From the KJV, 2Tim 3:
16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17
That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

I take “thoroughly furnished” to mean “completely equipped”.
Yes, I also understand thoroughly furnished to mean completely equipped. I think we are reading the passaged differently, however.

I read this to say that Scripture is profitable in the task of defining and teaching doctrine, reproving and correcting the faithful, and instructing the faithful in right living.

Scripture does not do these activities by itself, however. These are activities that are entrusted by Jesus to persons:

In Ephesians 4 the Apostle also tells us:

11 So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, 12 **to equip his people **for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13 until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.

So it seems that the duty of equipping the saints belongs to those appointed by Christ to that duty, and that the Scriptures are profitable to them in such a task.
If the scriptures we have do completely equip us, what more do we now need?
I agree 100%.

But it is not the Scriptures that equip us, but the Church, which Jesus founded for that task (as well as others). If the Scriptures were all that was needed, Jesus would have spent his ministry writing, rather than training His disciples. Clearly, Jesus founded His One Body, the Church because it is needed.
I agree that Jesus is the basis of our Christian faith.

I’m sensing you disagree?

Redle.
I find that many “bible Christians” erroneously believe that Christianity is a “religion of the book”, in that it is based on the book, and governed by the book. This is not the case. Christianity is based upon the Church, which later produced the book.

When one takes the book apart from the faith that created it, one can interpret it in many different ways, which leads to disunity in the One Church. I think this idea that the “bible fully equips us and is all we need” is part of what creates the division in Christendom today.
 
I read every day here for years and then even debated some. It was the same old same old. For some people, that never gets old. For others…it does.🤷
 
Is not the modern church based on the book?
Yes, all the modern Christian Churces are “based on the book”. Every eccleslial community since the Reformation is.

The Church built by Jesus is founded upon Peter and the Apostles. It was whole and entire before a word of the NT was ever written.
 
Sincere thanks Anna, for taking time to explain these terms. I certainly didn’t expect anyone to do this for me! . . . .
redle,
No problem. I was hoping Catholics would add to the definitions. There are some differences between Catholics and Anglicans. I did point out that Catholics believe there are souls in Purgatory and they are also part of the Communion of the Saints.

Anna
Thanks for elaborating on that point redle. Can you show me where in this passage it says that the Bible equips believers?

It is curious that you say we do not need to “add to Scripture”. From the Apostolic perspective, Jesus founded the Church, and left all that He taught in the custody of theApostles, making the Church the pillar and ground of the Truth. Then the Church “added” the Scripture, which was never intended to be a complete compendium of the faith. It is an authoritative collection of letters and memoirs that reflect the faith, but is not the Source of our faith. Jesus is our source.
guanophore,

redle did just get here. It is easy to get overwhelmed. I was when I first had these discussions. Though, you know I do appreciate your enthusiasm and your friendship. 😃

Anna
 
From the KJV, 2Tim 3:
16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17
That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

I take “thoroughly furnished” to mean “completely equipped”.
If the scriptures we have do completely equip us, what more do we now need?

I agree that Jesus is the basis of our Christian faith.

I’m sensing you disagree?

Redle.
redle,

One thing to keep in mind is that there has always been oral Tradition in Judaism and Christianity. Most of the Bible was transmitted through oral tradition, before being committed to writing. Holy Scripture requires interpretation. So, the question becomes, who has the authority to interpret Scripture? Do we look to Sacred Tradition, that deposit of faith once delivered and handed down from the Apostles, or do we disregard everything prior to the Protestant Reformation?

Whenever one word of commentary is spoken about any passage of Scripture, the Scripture alone approach ceases to exist. If all we needed was Scripture, there would be no need for Sunday sermons. If your pastor reads a passage of Scripture and then tells you what it means; he is drawing from some source of interpretation–which could be from the Tradition of early Church, could be from one or more of the Protestant Reformers, or maybe the pastor is giving his own private interpretation. Does that make sense?

The Canon of Holy Scripture was assembled by the Catholic Church, through the power of the Holy Spirit. There’s really no way to get around this fact. The early counsels of the undivided Church clarified the Gospel message, the Holy Trinity; and separated truth from heresy. Catholics and Anglicans have some disagreements when it comes to all 7 counsels; but that’s a different discussion.

Guanophore is presenting the Catholic position and it is a compelling one.

What I do know about Guanophore, PRmerger, and many Catholics here, is that they truly want all to come to the truth of Christ and His Church. While I might not agree with everything, I know their hearts and intentions are in the right place. This is one of the things that keeps drawing me back to these forums.

This link to the Catechism of the Catholic Church might be helpful (I have the Catechism of the Catholic Church on my desk, btw.)

PART ONE THE PROFESSION OF FAITH

SECTION ONE
“I BELIEVE” - “WE BELIEVE”

CHAPTER TWO
GOD COMES TO MEET MAN

ARTICLE 3
SACRED SCRIPTURE

I. CHRIST - THE UNIQUE WORD OF SACRED SCRIPTURE

101 In order to reveal himself to men, in the condescension of his goodness God speaks to them in human words: "Indeed the words of God, expressed in the words of men, are in every way like human language, just as the Word of the eternal Father, when he took on himself the flesh of human weakness, became like men."63

102 Through all the words of Sacred Scripture, God speaks only one single Word, his one Utterance in whom he expresses himself completely:64
Code:
You recall that one and the same Word of God extends throughout Scripture, that it is one and the same Utterance that resounds in the mouths of all the sacred writers, since he who was in the beginning God with God has no need of separate syllables; for he is not subject to time.65
103 For this reason,** the Church has always venerated the Scriptures as she venerates the Lord’s Body**. She never ceases to present to the faithful the bread of life, taken from the one table of God’s Word and Christ’s Body.66

104 In Sacred Scripture, the Church constantly finds her nourishment and her strength, for she welcomes it not as a human word, “but as what it really is, the word of God”.67 "In the sacred books, the Father who is in heaven comes lovingly to meet his children, and talks with them."68 . . . . .

You can read on.

So, I leave you in good hands as you continue your discussion.

Peace and blessings,
Anna
 
Yes, all the modern Christian Churces are “based on the book”. Every eccleslial community since the Reformation is.

The Church built by Jesus is founded upon Peter and the Apostles. It was whole and entire before a word of the NT was ever written.
True Christianity is not about a book. The book points to Jesus Christ for life.
 
True Christianity is not about a book. The book points to Jesus Christ for life.
Yes, we are in agreement on this matter.

What it comes down to, though, is how we understand the book. As you may know, Catholics and Fundamentalists read it differently, so it "points’ differently. When Jehovah Witnesses read it, it points to someone we would not even recognize as the Jesus brought to us through the Apostles.

We have different understandings of what life in Jesus Christ is all about because we understand the book differently. Catholics understand it from the point of view of those who wrote it. Modern evangelicals often understand it from the point of the Reformers who developed new ideas about 500 years ago unknown to the early Christians.
 
There are certainly some differences between our understandings of Jesus, but both your and my understandings can be ‘proven’ by scripture, which is pretty crazy really.

If I’m looking for the truth about Jesus with no preconceived ideas, who’s interpretation is correct? How do we know?

Redle.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top