Please help refute this....Sola scripture vs Roman Catholicism

  • Thread starter Thread starter suzyq_psu
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Anna_Scott said:
John,

As for Irenaeus, whom you so easily dismiss; remember Irenaeus saw Polycarp and heard his teachings. Polycarp was the last living connection with the Apostles; and was a disciple of Saint John the Evangelist. So, there were only three generations between Jesus and Irenaeus. This close proximity makes the works of Irenaeus a valuable testament to the beliefs and practices of the early Church.

Also, please lose the snide comments, such as your comment about “emotional baggage.”

Peace,
Anna
Click to expand...
anna,

Problem is if Irenaeus really heard what he said. He was just a boy when he heard polycarp and there are problems with his story. Polycarp does not confirm it. Polycarp in his letter to the Phillipians mentions many NT books but NOT anything by John. Strange would you not say if he had really met John the apostle? Ireneaus said the same thing about Papias but Eusebius makes a point of reading Papius to say say otherwise. If Irenaeus was wrong on papias why not Polycarp? And the clincher - The apostle John died before Polycarp was born. Historians dont believe that story and neither do I. I think Polycarp was speaking of another John not the apostle. Ireneaus was a young boy as he tells the story and did not hear it clearly.

I never said anything about emotional baggage. You are mistaking me for someone else. I have emotional baggage myself so its ok to me for anyone to have it. We all have emotional baggage. Do you deny it?

Peace, JohnR
 
highrigger1 said:
anna,

Problem is if Irenaeus really heard what he said. He was just a boy when he heard polycarp and there are problems with his story. Polycarp does not confirm it. Polycarp in his letter to the Phillipians mentions many NT books but NOT anything by John. Strange would you not say if he had really met John the apostle? Ireneaus said the same thing about Papias but Eusebius makes a point of reading Papius to say say otherwise. If Irenaeus was wrong on papias why not Polycarp? And the clincher - The apostle John died before Polycarp was born. Historians dont believe that story and neither do I.

I never said anything about emotional baggage. You are mistaking me for someone else. I have emotional baggage myself so its ok to me for anyone to have it. We all have emotional baggage. Do you deny it?

Peace, JohnR
Click to expand...
Joanna was in the belly of a whale? Historians can disprove that too! One man and one woman started the human race?mhistorians can disprove that too! All historian info is fiduciary. You must trust them more then the ECF huh?
 
highrigger1 said:
I never said anything about emotional baggage. You are mistaking me for someone else. I have emotional baggage myself so its ok to me for anyone to have it. We all have emotional baggage. Do you deny it?

Peace, JohnR
Click to expand...
highrigger1 said:
stew,
…
The only reason some put their trust in him is they have a lot of emotional baggage invested in what he asserts. Bad reason.

Peace, JohnR
Click to expand...
 
Sola Scriptura states:

Scripture Alone!
Is the sole and infallible rule of faith. That by reading the bible and praying, the bible can guide you to salvation.

The problems:

God never says to only follow a book, nor does he directly institute the writing of the books contained in the bible. Likewise He makes no claim that he intends for men to guide themselves, each to his own ideas, according to his own personal translation.

No where in the bible is it stated that scripture is all one needs.
 
highrigger1 said:
Peter,

Not necessarily. The apostles wanted to preach and not run a church.
No way to know for sure.

Peace, JohnR
Click to expand...
High,

This is phenonemal. Tell me how you came to believe and came to teach this…

I know what the Apostles want…they want to preach

I know what the Apostles don’t want…they don’t want to run a Church

Please tell me, so I may know:)
 
highrigger1 said:
Notice that website does not refute me. It says Peter was in Rome but does NOT say he was a bishop. It does not tell the full story like Brown does but one can see it does not refute him. It sort of passes on from any subject that would upset Catholics.

That shows me that their church is still not open to them. It seems to hide the full facts that Peter was not a bishop of Rome or anywhere.

I would not trust that website for the full explanation of anything.

Peace, JohnR
Click to expand...
High,

concerning Methodism…would you say that the following is true…
Only two sacraments are admitted: Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Baptism does not produce sanctifying grace in the soul, but strengthens its faith, and is the sign of a regeneration which has already taken place in the recipient. Its administration to infants is commanded because they are already members of the Kingdom of God. The Eucharist is a memorial of the Passion and Death of Jesus Christ, who is not really present under the species of bread and wine, but is received in a spiritual manner by believers. The sacrament is administered under both kinds to the laity. The “witness of the Spirit” to the soul of the individual believer and the consequent assurance of salvation are distinctive doctrines of Methodism.
Click to expand...
simple yes or no…
 
highrigger1 said:
anna,

Problem is if Irenaeus really heard what he said. He was just a boy when he heard polycarp and there are problems with his story. Polycarp does not confirm it. Polycarp in his letter to the Phillipians mentions many NT books but NOT anything by John. Strange would you not say if he had really met John the apostle? Ireneaus said the same thing about Papias but Eusebius makes a point of reading Papius to say say otherwise. If Irenaeus was wrong on papias why not Polycarp? And the clincher - The apostle John died before Polycarp was born. Historians dont believe that story and neither do I. I think Polycarp was speaking of another John not the apostle. Ireneaus was a young boy as he tells the story and did not hear it clearly. . . . .
Click to expand...
John,

Just do an Internet search for “Irenaeus, Polycarp, John” and see how many scholars and historians disagree with you.

This is a link from EWTN to get you started:

POPE JOHN PAUL ON THE CONTEMPORARY IMPORTANCE OF ST IRENAEUS
Mons. Philippe Delhaye
Secretary General of the International Theological Commission
ewtn.com/library/theology/irenaeus.htm

Peace,
Anna
 
highrigger1 said:
anna,

Problem is if Irenaeus really heard what he said. He was just a boy when he heard polycarp and there are problems with his story. Polycarp does not confirm it. Polycarp in his letter to the Phillipians mentions many NT books but NOT anything by John. Strange would you not say if he had really met John the apostle? Ireneaus said the same thing about Papias but Eusebius makes a point of reading Papius to say say otherwise. If Irenaeus was wrong on papias why not Polycarp? And the clincher - The apostle John died before Polycarp was born. Historians dont believe that story and neither do I. I think Polycarp was speaking of another John not the apostle. Ireneaus was a young boy as he tells the story and did not hear it clearly.

I never said anything about emotional baggage. You are mistaking me for someone else. I have emotional baggage myself so its ok to me for anyone to have it. We all have emotional baggage. Do you deny it?

Peace, JohnR
Click to expand...
“We begin today with Polycarp, (A.D. 70-155) one of the most famous martyrs in the early church. Polycarp was bishop of Smyrna in the middle of the second century A.D., and was widely admired for the pastoral care and compassion that he demonstrated to his flock. He had strong ties with both the apostles and the early church fathers. Polycarp had actually known the apostle John during his childhood. He was friends with Ignatius, one of the most important leaders of the early church. Polycarp was also one of the teachers of Irenaeus, one of the most influential theologians and apologists of the second century.”
from the teaching fellowship of R. C. Sproul.

The birth year of Polycarp is not in dispute. 70 AD. Add 25 years and you have the approx. year that John wrote Revelation (95 AD.). So we can safely say that Polycarp, as a young adult, knew St. John the Apostle.

welcome to a more civilized forum 😉
 
pablope said:
Well…I just checked your source…it is not a neutral site…it is an anti-catholic website…and what you are saying in the bolded above is not true.

here is what they say…Writings in the library for the most part represent orthodox Christianity as understood by mainstream Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox Christians, with greater emphases on Reformed and Protestant writings.

The CCEL also seeks to provide educational and scholarly opportunities for interested faculty members and students of Calvin College.

They have a calvinist bent.

This then just shows their bias…with emphasis on what they believe to be orthodox…they are not objective…so their translations are slanted…and cannot be trusted.
Click to expand...
That makes it anti Catholic? Do you think they purposely change wording in writings or is it that, they don’t include Catholic writings? I read the Catholic sites also and their sites are biased also, where does one find neutral info. One must read both sides and draw their own conclusions. And read independent history books. I find whenever someone none Catholic quotes something from even Wiki here, its not to be trusted. I say this as a RC that likes to hear both sides of the coin. I have read much on that site and have yet to find any anti Catholic statement or slant or any independent view on Christianity.
 
highrigger1 said:
Peter,

Not necessarily. The apostles wanted to preach and not run a church.
No way to know for sure.

Peace, JohnR
Click to expand...
Really? Then why would he start a Church for? By the way what is running a Church? Is that no preaching?
 
rinnie said:
Really? Then why would he start a Church for? By the way what is running a Church? Is that no preaching?
Click to expand...
Rinnie,
I hope highrigger1 absorbed some truth before he bit the dust. Lifting up prayers for him.

Peace and blessings,
Anna
 
Luvtosew said:
That makes it anti Catholic? Do you think they purposely change wording in writings or is it that, they don’t include Catholic writings? I read the Catholic sites also and their sites are biased also, where does one find neutral info. One must read both sides and draw their own conclusions. And read independent history books. I find whenever someone none Catholic quotes something from even Wiki here, its not to be trusted. I say this as a RC that likes to hear both sides of the coin. I have read much on that site and have yet to find any anti Catholic statement or slant or any independent view on Christianity.
Click to expand...
I was responding to Highrig’s comments that Catholic sites were adding and changing words…I think you should examine HR’s posts…in which what we presented were myths and legends according to him.

I do hope he took your advise to read independent books…he was mainly focusing on three “experts” according to him…and disregarded everything that disagreed with him.
 
pablope said:
I was responding to Highrig’s comments that Catholic sites were adding and changing words…I think you should examine HR’s posts…in which what we presented were myths and legends according to him.

I do hope he took your advise to read independent books…he was mainly focusing on three “experts” according to him…and disregarded everything that disagreed with him.
Click to expand...
Oh ok, as I kinda liked that one site, and I had never read anything anti catholic on it. I misunderstood so excuse me.🙂
 
Anna_Scott said:
Rinnie,
I hope highrigger1 absorbed some truth before he bit the dust. Lifting up prayers for him.

Peace and blessings,
Anna
Click to expand...
Yes, indeed. Highrigger1 was banned, because he didn’t discuss. He just repeated time and time again the same arguments, even after conceding about many of our arguments, and still holding his with such inconsistency.

For example, if you believe the Church is the pillar of truth. That you must go to the Church for such questions, that the bible is written tradition taught by the Church, and so on… It is incompatible to believe in sola scriptura, because OH WAIT? the Church is the pillar of truth we must go to!, not the bible!. The bible came from the Church, not vice versa. The bible is the written tradition taught by the Church along with oral traditions. Highrigger1 claimed He agree with all this, but still claimed sola scriptura :confused:. You cannot drink water that is both cold and warm.
 
Luvtosew said:
That makes it anti Catholic? Do you think they purposely change wording in writings or is it that, they don’t include Catholic writings? I read the Catholic sites also and their sites are biased also, where does one find neutral info. One must read both sides and draw their own conclusions. And read independent history books. I find whenever someone none Catholic quotes something from even Wiki here, its not to be trusted. I say this as a RC that likes to hear both sides of the coin. I have read much on that site and have yet to find any anti Catholic statement or slant or any independent view on Christianity.
Click to expand...
That’s because ANYONE, not just here will tell you wiki is not a reliable source for anything, it can be edited by ANYONE at ANYTIME. Don’t worry I used to be like you too, until I realized I wasn’t as wise as I once thought. I think the only way to be assured that what you are reading is true/false…Is it bringing you into conflict with God or towards God? Catholicism has brought me back towards God, everything else had me questioning everything all the time and it made me crazy, now I feel good and at peace with it and my life is moving in a direction that supports my faith. Best of luck to you 🙂 Many blessings!

Oh and sometimes you have to walk through the valley of the shadow of death before you see the light 🙂

I recommend looking into Saint Faustina…God APPEARED to her. Literally appeared and told her what to write. A saint with only 3 years of education writes a 600 page book. She was a prayer warrior. I think you would like her message from Jesus to us.

Sorry this is waaay off topic 😃
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top