P
Plzxplainwbcv
Guest
- Status
D
darcee
Guest
If you were so honest you wouldn’t have started this thread in the manner you did.
-D
-D
B
Boomer_Sooner
Guest
Plz,
You claim to reject this tradition – yet, it is thanks to the traditions of the Catholic Church that you have those books in your KJV that you hold so dear! If you claim not to accept its traditions… then why do you accept those books in your KJV as being valid? The Bible didn’t just fall down from Heaven in its current form! The Church precedes the New Testament – the New Testament does not precede the Church.
As Henry Graham states in his excellent book:
You claim to reject this tradition – yet, it is thanks to the traditions of the Catholic Church that you have those books in your KJV that you hold so dear! If you claim not to accept its traditions… then why do you accept those books in your KJV as being valid? The Bible didn’t just fall down from Heaven in its current form! The Church precedes the New Testament – the New Testament does not precede the Church.
As Henry Graham states in his excellent book:
Then further along, on page 15…
Once again, I beg you to purchase and read this book. I think it will really help clear up a lot of confusion you might have on the issue. (And no, it is not brainwashing material! :nope: )
P
Plzxplainwbcv
Guest
how so? i gave a link to what i believe…and i was questioning how catholics reason with this…
R
ralphinal
Guest
Luke 1:46-49…“all generations will call me blessed…” Do you? I do, because it is in there. Revelation 12:1…who is the woman clothed in the sun, with the moon under her feet and crowned with stars, isn’t she important to recognize? I do not know anyone who dresses like that unless God has truely blest them. Also check the verse before that, why is the Ark shown before the woman?
Look, tell me that you honestly beleive every verse in the Bible literally as the inspired word of God. No Catholic, no protestant, just that you accept each and every chapter and verse in its entirety wheather you understand it or not. I do. Another question: who put the Bible together? WE know that Jesus and thoe alive before him had what we call the Old Testement, but who chose the New? Where is the Acts of Peter? Acts of Paul? Protoevangelium of James? Gosple of Thomas? Why are there no letters from Barnabus? There were a lot of Christian writings from the first century, where are they in the Bible?
I do not want to argue. Just tell me if you accept everything in the Bible and where the actual list of books came from. If I am wrong, I can admit it, if I am right, can you?
Look, tell me that you honestly beleive every verse in the Bible literally as the inspired word of God. No Catholic, no protestant, just that you accept each and every chapter and verse in its entirety wheather you understand it or not. I do. Another question: who put the Bible together? WE know that Jesus and thoe alive before him had what we call the Old Testement, but who chose the New? Where is the Acts of Peter? Acts of Paul? Protoevangelium of James? Gosple of Thomas? Why are there no letters from Barnabus? There were a lot of Christian writings from the first century, where are they in the Bible?
I do not want to argue. Just tell me if you accept everything in the Bible and where the actual list of books came from. If I am wrong, I can admit it, if I am right, can you?
D
darcee
Guest
Plzxplainwbcv said:
You said you were “simply trying to get and understanding”.
From your other posts this is OBVIOUSLY not true. You aren’t here to understand you are here to present your own opinion and your original claim was dishonest.
-D
R
Redeemerslove
Guest
Wrong, for 2 THE 2:15 has this to say:
2 THE 2:15 said:
Case closed, the oral statement is just as valid as a written statement: The NT Letters, or the Gospel of Luke, which Paul edited. You can have an oral statement alone you must believe, or a written statement alone you must believe - it’s not only the Scriptures and not only the oral traditions - it’s both.
The bible is complete, but the doctrines we are to believe are not all written in the bible as 2 THE 2:15 implies, and John states explicitly:
John 21:26 said:
Plzxplainwbcv said:
Nowhere do I see the phraise “everything is written down in the bible, that you need to believe.” This verse is instead talking about the Holy Spirit.
Nowhere does it say “everything is written down in the bible, that you need to believe.” It says that “everything that makes for life and devotion, through the knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and power”
This does not preclude oral tradition being part of that “everything.” Since it does not say “oral tradition is precluded from this ‘everything.’” you simply have assumed it is in your own mind.
Where does this verse talk about scripture at all. You have just proved my point, for Paul said he did not “shrink from telling them everything”, not writing to them everything. Welcome to the Catholic Church.
Acts 20:27 “for I did not shrink from proclaiming to you the entire plan of God.”/quote]
He may have told them the entire plan of God, but that doesnt mean he gave them every doctrine. For a plan is a strategy****, and a doctrine is a statement of fact.
**
Plzxplainwbcv:
**
It says teaching them all I have commanded you, not writing to them all I have commanded you. Where did you take english anyway? And since they taught, it might have been in oral or written form, you assume the oral form. In the greek the word used here is Didasko, which implies an oral presentation.
Plzxplainwbcv:
Where does this say anything about what is contained in scripture. It states the purpose of prophesy, not what books in the bible contain prophecy, nor what the books of the bible are for that matter.
Finally it does not speak about everything being in the bible at all. Where did you take your grammar classes again? these questions about your education are not attacks, they are simply pointing to an educational deficit I think you are demonstrating.
To Be Continued…
R
Redeemerslove
Guest
Continued…
Plzxplainwbcv:
Indeed all scripture is inspired of God, but where does it define which passages are scripture and which are not?
Lastly, where does it say that oral tradition is not part of this equipping? Indeed scripture is useful for these things. But Paul says many other things are useful (profitable) as well:
“This is a trustworthy saying. And I want you to stress these things, so that those who have trusted in God may be careful to devote themselves to doing what is good. These things are excellent and useful for everyone.” (Titus 3:8)
In the same letter Paul says:
“If a man cleanses himself from the latter, he will be an instrument for noble purposes, made holy, useful to the Master and prepared to do any good work.”(2 Tim 2:2)
And finally"
“Formerly he was useless to you, but now he has become useful both to you and to me.”(Philemon 1:11)
So as to useful things we have:
Who are the elders? Abraham, Moses, David, etc. And look what they were doing before the throne of God… offering incense - a sign of prayer by the offerer.
“…but nothing unclean will enter it [heaven], nor any (one) who does abominable things or tells lies. Only those will enter whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life.” (Rev 21:27)
Can you call yourself sinless? The saints in heaven can, or they wouldn’t be there, as Rev 21:27 testifies. Which prayers are more powerful, that of a sinless person, or that of a person who has sin? Do you have sin?
The confusion you seem to be experiencing is normal. When we learn that our old ways of thinking may be incorrect, we tend to have a fight or flight response: It can be very comfortable. My suggestion is you continue to collect your thoughts, think about what we are saying.
Keep word “may be equiped,” but that this person may be equipped. Doesn’t give a guarantee either, only the statement of a possibility of being equiped. Secondly, where does it say anything about everything we need being in the bible?
Indeed all scripture is inspired of God, but where does it define which passages are scripture and which are not?
Lastly, where does it say that oral tradition is not part of this equipping? Indeed scripture is useful for these things. But Paul says many other things are useful (profitable) as well:
“This is a trustworthy saying. And I want you to stress these things, so that those who have trusted in God may be careful to devote themselves to doing what is good. These things are excellent and useful for everyone.” (Titus 3:8)
In the same letter Paul says:
“If a man cleanses himself from the latter, he will be an instrument for noble purposes, made holy, useful to the Master and prepared to do any good work.”(2 Tim 2:2)
And finally"
“Formerly he was useless to you, but now he has become useful both to you and to me.”(Philemon 1:11)
So as to useful things we have:
- Scripture.
- Devotion to what is good.
- Cleansing oneself from what is evil.
- A person.
Name a verse that Catholics have added to the bible? I have shown already that we are to hold fast to oral traditions and written traditions (the bible). Show me where Catholics have added a verse to the bible?
"When he took it, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each of the elders held a harp and gold bowls filled with incense, which are the prayers of the holy ones.(Rev 5:8)
Who are the elders? Abraham, Moses, David, etc. And look what they were doing before the throne of God… offering incense - a sign of prayer by the offerer.
You can pray for yourself, but would you call the prayer of a sinless person more powerful than yours?
“…but nothing unclean will enter it [heaven], nor any (one) who does abominable things or tells lies. Only those will enter whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life.” (Rev 21:27)
Can you call yourself sinless? The saints in heaven can, or they wouldn’t be there, as Rev 21:27 testifies. Which prayers are more powerful, that of a sinless person, or that of a person who has sin? Do you have sin?
Thats your first mistake: Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and said, “Do you understand what you are reading?” He replied, “How can I, unless someone instructs me?”(Acts 8:31)
Paul did (2 THE 1:25).
It’s not all adding up according to your backgrpund. Catholic Thought is quite different then Protestant Sola Scriptura Thought, and more in line with the Truth.
The confusion you seem to be experiencing is normal. When we learn that our old ways of thinking may be incorrect, we tend to have a fight or flight response: It can be very comfortable. My suggestion is you continue to collect your thoughts, think about what we are saying.
S
Salmon
Guest
Are you under the impression that Catholics have another book considered to be the Word of God? This theme keeps showing up in your posts, and it may be an easy misconception to resolve.
Peace in Christ…Salmon
B
Boomer_Sooner
Guest
I’m afraid there’s no “secret book” that we Catholics have added to the Bible… but there is one guy that I know of…
:: cough cough Martin Luther cough cough ::
… who has subtracted some books from the Bible… but that’s a whoooole other story
:: cough cough Martin Luther cough cough ::
… who has subtracted some books from the Bible… but that’s a whoooole other story
V
VociMike
Guest
Who says the bible is the inspired Word of God, much less the only inspired Word of God?
S
Sherlock
Guest
Plz Xplain,
Have you gone to the site catholic.com, as someone has already suggested? It would be a good source for the answers you’re looking for. I say this because, as someone has pointed out, you’re all over the map and it would be more profitable for you, given the structure of a forum, to answer one question here more thoroughly than to try and address in little pieces what questions you have raised.
Regarding prayer to the saints: as Redeemerslove has pointed out, look at this verse in Revelations: “When he took it, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each of the elders held a harp and gold bowls filled with incense, which are the prayers of the holy ones.(Rev 5:8)”
The elders are the saints in heaven: Abraham, Moses, as well as the other saints. The “prayers of the holy ones” are the prayers of Christians on earth. They are advancing our prayers to God—we don’t pray to the saints as gods, we are asking for their intercessory prayer, as is shown by this verse. It’s also worth pointing out that in the catacombs one can find inscriptions asking the departed to pray for those on earth—obviously, the first Christians did not find this contrary to Scripture.
You asked: “Where is it said Mary is to be praised, as the praise the catholic church gives her?”
You will find in Luke that “all generations shall call me blessed”–Catholics participate in that New Testament prophecy. Also, you can see Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant, carrying the Incarnate Word, prefigured in the Ark of the Old Covenant—the Word of God given to Moses wasn’t just put into any old vessel; it’s design was commanded by God and it was revered. The New Testament always fulfills, in a PERFECT way, its Old Testament prefigurement. WE don’t “worship” Mary as God, we honor her.
It is also important to see devotion to Mary as a part of a broad and deep theology. As the famous convert, John Newman wrote, when describing his own conversion to Catholicism, “I am not sure that I did not also at this time feel the force of another consideration. The idea of the Blessed Virgin was, as it were, magnified (emphasis Newman’s) in the Church of Rome, as time went on, —but so were all the Christian ideas; as that of the Blessed Eucharist. The whole scene of pale, faint, distant Apostolic Christianity is seen in Rome, as through a telescope or magnifier. The harmony of the whole, however, is of course what it was. It is unfair then to take one Roman idea, that of the Blessed Virgin, out of what may be called its context. Thus I am brought to the principle of the development of doctrine in the Christian Church, to which I gave my mind at the end of 1842.”
There is no basis to be found for sola scriptura where it ought to be found, in the Scriptures themselves. The verse from Timothy that is usually provided by Protestants to “prove” that does not say that Scipture ALONE is the “pillar and foundation of truth”—that title is given by Paul to the Church. That Scripture is profitable, etc., etc., is true, as any Catholic would agree with.
The word “Trinity” is not found in the Bible, but Protestants accept it even though it is an extra-Biblical concept. Somone once told me, “well, that can be readily inferred”, but that’s only easy to say in hindsight: it was a doctrine that was developed over time, and the early Arian heresy shows that it was not as “readily inferred” as you might think.
Also, there is a problem with basic logic if you maintain sola scriptura: how do you avoid the fallacy of circular thinking when asked to show the inspiration of the BIble? (It IS inspired, but I am getting at HOW you know that.) It goes like this: “How do you know the Bible is inspired?” “Because it says so in the Bible.” “But how do can you trust what it says in the Bible?” “Because it’s inspired.” This just won’t do—the Qu’ran also claims inspiration for itself, so on what logical basis would you accept the Bible but reject the Qu’ran? So, Plz Explain, HOW do know the Bible is inspired, without falling into this fallacy?
Have you gone to the site catholic.com, as someone has already suggested? It would be a good source for the answers you’re looking for. I say this because, as someone has pointed out, you’re all over the map and it would be more profitable for you, given the structure of a forum, to answer one question here more thoroughly than to try and address in little pieces what questions you have raised.
Regarding prayer to the saints: as Redeemerslove has pointed out, look at this verse in Revelations: “When he took it, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each of the elders held a harp and gold bowls filled with incense, which are the prayers of the holy ones.(Rev 5:8)”
The elders are the saints in heaven: Abraham, Moses, as well as the other saints. The “prayers of the holy ones” are the prayers of Christians on earth. They are advancing our prayers to God—we don’t pray to the saints as gods, we are asking for their intercessory prayer, as is shown by this verse. It’s also worth pointing out that in the catacombs one can find inscriptions asking the departed to pray for those on earth—obviously, the first Christians did not find this contrary to Scripture.
You asked: “Where is it said Mary is to be praised, as the praise the catholic church gives her?”
You will find in Luke that “all generations shall call me blessed”–Catholics participate in that New Testament prophecy. Also, you can see Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant, carrying the Incarnate Word, prefigured in the Ark of the Old Covenant—the Word of God given to Moses wasn’t just put into any old vessel; it’s design was commanded by God and it was revered. The New Testament always fulfills, in a PERFECT way, its Old Testament prefigurement. WE don’t “worship” Mary as God, we honor her.
It is also important to see devotion to Mary as a part of a broad and deep theology. As the famous convert, John Newman wrote, when describing his own conversion to Catholicism, “I am not sure that I did not also at this time feel the force of another consideration. The idea of the Blessed Virgin was, as it were, magnified (emphasis Newman’s) in the Church of Rome, as time went on, —but so were all the Christian ideas; as that of the Blessed Eucharist. The whole scene of pale, faint, distant Apostolic Christianity is seen in Rome, as through a telescope or magnifier. The harmony of the whole, however, is of course what it was. It is unfair then to take one Roman idea, that of the Blessed Virgin, out of what may be called its context. Thus I am brought to the principle of the development of doctrine in the Christian Church, to which I gave my mind at the end of 1842.”
There is no basis to be found for sola scriptura where it ought to be found, in the Scriptures themselves. The verse from Timothy that is usually provided by Protestants to “prove” that does not say that Scipture ALONE is the “pillar and foundation of truth”—that title is given by Paul to the Church. That Scripture is profitable, etc., etc., is true, as any Catholic would agree with.
The word “Trinity” is not found in the Bible, but Protestants accept it even though it is an extra-Biblical concept. Somone once told me, “well, that can be readily inferred”, but that’s only easy to say in hindsight: it was a doctrine that was developed over time, and the early Arian heresy shows that it was not as “readily inferred” as you might think.
Also, there is a problem with basic logic if you maintain sola scriptura: how do you avoid the fallacy of circular thinking when asked to show the inspiration of the BIble? (It IS inspired, but I am getting at HOW you know that.) It goes like this: “How do you know the Bible is inspired?” “Because it says so in the Bible.” “But how do can you trust what it says in the Bible?” “Because it’s inspired.” This just won’t do—the Qu’ran also claims inspiration for itself, so on what logical basis would you accept the Bible but reject the Qu’ran? So, Plz Explain, HOW do know the Bible is inspired, without falling into this fallacy?
T
The_Barrister
Guest
Please stop feeding the troll… :banghead:
B
BobCatholic
Guest
OK, let’s find out something.
There are tens of thousands of differing and conflicting interpreations of scripture, all by people claiming to be guided by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit does not lie or contradict.
- Where does it say, using scripture alone, which one of those interpretations is the correct one? They ALL cannot be correct!
- What does the Bible say to do when two or more Spirit Filled Christians disagree on what the scriptures are saying and how to settle the controversey? We can’t have doctrinal relativism (which is what sola scripturists are practicing)
Inerrant Scripture + error prone interpretation of scripture = error.
The only way to have the Truth is:
Inerrant scripture + infallible interpretation of scripture = Truth
Now, Please show me where it says in the Bible that we are not required to have an infallible interpreter of scripture (per what you just said) after all, if we don’t need any “outside authority” as you say, then what you’re saying is Jesus said “here’s a Bible, you’re on your own, I have left you orphans” and there is no way to interpret infallibly the Bible since there is no outside authority.
S
srkbdk
Guest
Two things
How do you know this?
If the Catholic Church was anti Bible why did she put it togther and make it avaliable for all the world??
God Bless and I hope you answer.
- Status