Proof that sola scriptura is not true

[2ndGen]

***Hi, 2ndGen!

This is a great bit of info… though I do tend to generalize… I’ve come across several non-Catholic Christians who seem to have memorized everything about Martin Luther but these bits of information–they are so miniscule, seemingly unimportant, but they convey the exact reflection of Luther’s reasoning: (my words) “I am what I am… I’m Luther the rewrite man!”

…still, for non-Catholic Christians to forgive his transgressions against insertion and omition of Sacred Writings (coincidentally there is Scriptural admonishion against such acts) says a lot about their capacity for forgiveness.

…I’ve mentioned in some of my post that I am not familiar with spiritual writings… are you aware of an internet site that would offer the excerpts you’ve quoted above?

Maran atha!

Angel***

Sure, you can use this Protestant site I’m fond of (and they have a disclaimer that clearly profess that they are not Catholic). They are very good and honest Christians who seek the Truth and I commend their courage in their denouncing the founder of their faith.

cogwriter.com/luther.htm

Then, there are a ton of other pages.

google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4TSHA_en___US242&q=martin+luther+added+words+to+the+bible

Good reading.

And thank you for the compliment. I am humbled.

For me, once I find that a man has lied and used The Word of God to lie, he loses all credibility with me.

If Protestants were to completely disregard Luther based on his adding words to scripture to change the meanings of the teachings of God, then they’d have to throw away the very foundations on why they should continue to be Protestants and not Universal Christians like the overwhelming majority of Christians are and have always been.

If you’re a Protestant because you love your church and you feel God there, Beautiful. I’m all for that.

But if one is a Protestant because they don’t want to be Catholic or because they are anti-Catholic, well then, that’s a sad way to base “why” one is what they are.

“Protesting” should never be the basis for a religion or for the creation of a church.

I bet you they don’t know that Martin Luther defended Mary’s Immaculate Conception, her perpetual virginity and that he prayed to her! His fellows Zwigli and Calvin also defended Mary!

I like to ask them where the Reformer’s leaders wrong then or are “they” wrong now?

LOL!

 

[anthony022071]

No, faith alone can save you.
Works are a product of faith, but it is the faith that saves.
Faith without works is dead, and dead faith cannot save you.
Faith is through grace, just as Scripture says.
First grace, then faith.

You’re contradicting yourself,and scripture. On the one hand you say that faith alone can save you,whereas James makes it clear that works are necessary for a faith which saves;and on the other you say,with James,that faith without works is dead,and cannot save. Now since a dead faith,a faith without works,cannot save us for eternal life,what is the value in speaking about faith alone? Works are not only a product of faith,but are the life-giving spirit of faith.

“For just as a body without a spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.”

To say that we are saved by faith alone is like saying that we are alive by the body alone.

Not only did James not say that we are saved by faith alone,but rather he said “See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.” Now if we are justified by works along with faith,we are also saved by works along with faith. There’s no dichotomy between justification and salvation,and there’s no differentiation between the faith which saves and the works which make faith alive.

 

[2ndGen]

You’re contradicting yourself,and scripture. On the one hand you say that faith alone can save you,whereas James makes it clear that works are necessary for a faith which saves;and on the other you say,with James,that faith without works is dead,and cannot save. Now since a dead faith,a faith without works,cannot save us for eternal life,what is the value in speaking about faith alone?
Works are not only a product of faith,but are the life-giving spirit of faith.

“For just as a body without a spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.”

To say that we are saved by faith alone is like saying that we are alive by the body alone.

Not only did James not say that we are saved by faith alone,but rather he said “See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.” Now if we are justified by works along with faith,we are also saved by works along with faith. There’s no dichotomy between justification and salvation,and there’s no differentiation between the faith which saves and the works which make faith alive.

“You’re contradicting yourself,and scripture.”

:clapping:

 

[jcrichton]

Firstly, not one of the Gospels relate Jesus meeting His mother on the way to the Cross, not one. Luke alone mentions the meeting with the “Daughters of Jerusalem”. It is probable that John was with Mary, as we know that they were together during the crucifixion, so why would John not mention Jesus meeting His mother on the way to the Cross? This does not prove that the meeting did not happen, just that if it did happen, it seemed strangely unworthy of mention by any of the Gospel writers, particularly John into whose care Mary was entrusted by Jesus.

***Hi, WayneTalbot!

…interesting… so you think that the Gospels should cover everything that Jesus and Mary went through… so why are the Holy Scriptures so cryptic about Jesus’ infancy, adolescence, etc.

…and of course you shun every single (Biblically inspired) book written by non-Catholic Christians discussing everything from path to wealth and health, the several layers of Heaven, the keys to the kingdom, Yahweh’s desire that our spirituality be reflected in financial prosperity and exceptional good health, and the rapture/s…

One more thought, where is the Biblical evidence that Jesus or the Apostles created secret forms of communication for the Church (i.e.: fish symbol, etc.)?

Maran atha!

Angel***

 

[2ndGen]

***Hi, WayneTalbot!

…interesting… so you think that the Gospels should cover everything that Jesus and Mary went through… so why are the Holy Scriptures so cryptic about Jesus’ infancy, adolescence, etc.

…and of course you shun every single (Biblically inspired) book written by non-Catholic Christians discussing everything from path to wealth and health, the several layers of Heaven, the keys to the kingdom, Yahweh’s desire that our spirituality be reflected in financial prosperity and exceptional good health, and the rapture/s…

One more thought, where is the Biblical evidence that Jesus or the Apostles created secret forms of communication for the Church (i.e.: fish symbol, etc.)?

Maran atha!

Angel***

“…so why would John not mention Jesus meeting His mother on the way to the Cross?”

Being that Jesus is the most important person “in” The Gospel, let’s see what John wrote about why he didnt’ write about “everything” that Jesus did:

John 21:25
“And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.”

So, if He didn’t write everything that Jesus did, how much less would he have written about Mary?

My favorite answer to those “if it ain’t in the bible” literalists… Does the Bible state that Jesus “didn’t” meet Mary on the way to The Cross?

Ultimately, there was only one human being who was with Jesus from the beginning of His earthly life, straight through to the end who NEVER abandoned Him…and that was The Blessed Holy Mother of Jesus Christ…Mary.

 

[jcrichton]

I cannot reconcile this practice with a Church that claims to have the “completeness of truth”. Honesty and intellectual integrity do not allow for the inclusion of “perhaps truths”, and do not allow for the promotion and spread of mythologies that the Church, if it has any wisdom at all, should know that some of its less discerning adherents will believe to be actual truth; this is not “caring for the flock”, and in a broader sense, can lead to actual heresy.

Finally, I cannot understand why the Catholic Church lacks faith in Jesus’ promise to be with us, and the uplifting presence of the Holy Spirit within us; why the Church thinks that the bare facts of Christ’s Passion and Sacrifice for us, is insufficient to stir love within us, that we need the addition of mythological and emotionally charged images to bolster our faith

Many Christians embrace the broad interpretation of Sola Scriptura as a refuge from this perceived lack of faith in Christ, the demonstrated lack of faith in the sufficiency of truth, and the demonstrated lack of commitment to the completeness of truth.

***Hi, WayneTalbot!

…Faith… perhaps you employ too much analytical science and very little faith…

Your concern seems genuine but your words belie them. On one hand, you argue against the Church changing its doctrines; while, on the other, you chastise her for keeping old methods of teaching the illiterate about Christ and for keeping the thought that Jesus’ death on the Cross is what saved us from death… is that Biblical? Could you honestly say that when you read the New Testament you find the Apostles preaching a rosy-cheeked Jesus ascending into Heaven? Do you not understand Paul’s words when he professes to know Jesus Crucified or when he offers his suffering in Christ? …have you ever read the Apocalypse? Does it not describe Jesus with two very salient reminders of His Passion and Crucifixion (those who pierced Him; the almost completely decapitated lamb)?

Isn’t it interesting that you seek to remove yourself (non-Catholics Christians included) from the Cross when Paul and the Catholic Church embraces His Cross? And isn’t it interesting also that the very sign of His suffering is used in Apocalypse (1:7) as a sign during His Glorious Parousia?

Faith… not in analysis of the Word of God but in living the Word that was Crucified for our sake!

Maran atha!

Angel***

 

[2ndGen]

That reminds me…

I asked a Protestant why they used the cross “without” Christ on it. They told me that “He is risen” and is no longer on The Cross.

When asked why we kept Him “on” the cross, I told them (as my own opinion, not as Church Doctrine) that it wasn’t the risen Jesus that paid for our sins, but the sacrificed Christ.

I told them that we never want to forget His sufferings for us.

I told them that the cross is nothing but a piece of wood without Jesus on it.

Theives and murderers were crucified on crosses.

The cross represents the instrument used to kill Jesus.

Jesus “on” the cross represents “how” He saved us.

A cross “without” Jesus is just a Roman instrument of torture and capitol punishment…not unlike an electric chair.

The cross doesn’t make Jesus…

…Jesus on the cross makes the cross worthy of recognition.

 

[jcrichton]

That the Catholic Church continues is evidence perhaps more of its secular nature, its wealth, its power and influence, and the way it deals with dissidents, than its spiritual doctrines.

***Hi, Wayne Talbot!

…so you believe that the Catholic Church employs special “storm troopers” to track down dissenters and forcefully bring them back to a Catholic Parish?

Maran atha!

Angel***

 

[anthony022071]

That reminds me…

I asked a Protestant why they used the cross “without” Christ on it. They told me that “He is risen” and is no longer on The Cross.

That reminds me of how protestants downplay the importance of works and sacrifice in salvation. Christ dying on the cross was a sacrificial work,and it was also a teaching by example of love unto death.

 

[jcrichton]

Did Jesus, the man, even exist?

I’ve been wrestling with this during the Christmas season:

Earliest Christianity - G. A. Wells (1999)

"It is almost universally accepted that Jesus lived in the opening decades of the first century, taught certain doctrines in Galilee, worked there what were at any rate taken for miracles, and died in Jerusalem, at the behest of the Roman governor Pontius Pilate.

I have reiterated that none of this is told of Jesus in the extant Christian epistles (Pauline and other) which are either earlier than the gospels or early enough to have been written independently of them. This discrepancy is particularly striking when behaviour or teaching ascribed to him in the gospels has obvious relevance to the concerns being persued by the writers of these epistles. The New Testament scholar Professor Graham Stanton frankly calls it ‘baffling’ that Paul fails to ‘refer more frequently and at greater length to the actions and teaching of Jesus’, particularly at points where ‘he might well have clinched his argument by doing so’.

There is, then, a discrepancy between the earliest documents (additionally to the genuine Paulines, three post-Paulines ascribed to Paul (2 Thessalonians, Colossians and Ephesians) and also the letter to the Hebrews, the epistle of James, the first epistle of Peter, the three epistles of John and the book of Revelation.) that should not be brushed aside."

George Albert Wells (b. 1926), is an Emeritus Professor of German at Birkbeck, University of London. He is best known as an advocate of the theory that Jesus is a largely mythical rather than a historical figure.

***Hi, tabcom!

…did you ever watch “Little house on the Prairie?” It depicted a one-room school house where all of the children, regardless of age/grade, were taught by one teacher… today we see in the news that some grade-schoolers will be working with computers and computerized boards (with touch screens no less)… why would we want to apply today’s methods to Peter, Paul or John?

The Epistles were necessary because it was the only method of long-distance communication available to them. (Can you imagine a homing peagon carrying 30 pieces of hand-written scrolls?)

The Gospels were not created through dictation; Jesus did not have His own personal scribe following Him around taking down everything He said and did. As far as I understand it, the Jews (as a people) did not have their “home edition” of the Sacred Scrolls, so why would Jesus implement such behavior, the Man that has not even a place on which to lay His head walking about town with His promotional entourage?

Again, as I understand it, the very first Epistle was written nearly two decades after Christ’s Ascension–till them all of the preaching of the Gospel was done orally (check the history of Oral Tradition of the Sadducees). There must have come a time when, perhaps do to the expansion of the Church, the Holy Spirit inspired the Evangelists to write the Gospels. We can see from St. Luke’s efforts that the concern for the future of the Church came to mind (passing the Teachings of Jesus beyond the Apostles’ life-span) as he himself gathers as much information (first-hand and otherwise) to produce a Gospel that would be as close as possible to a chronological account of Jesus’ Life and Ministry.

…for a backwards, kinkoless, xeroxless, computerless, ipodless reporters I think they did an excellent job.

I do not know if you ever watched “Married with Children,” but there’s an episode when the remote control is missing (or is it dead batteries) and the kids are sitting in front of the TV not knowing what to do… Bud (the brother) tells his sister that he remembers something about the time when grownups would go to the TV set and press/turn the botton to turn it on… in amazement they discovered that it could be done!–The moral? That truly happens in today’s world where children do not know what a record (LP) is and they cannot fathom being without a cell phone/computer/ipod… this technological advancement has come within the last century; yet “scholars” want to prescribe modern-day values and resources to the ancient-world customs and resources.

Maran atha!

Angel***

 

[jcrichton]

Jesus said it best when He spoke of people who were called to remain celibate, or some that have been called to celibacy from birth (and besides, if a person gives up wife in order to follow Jesus, this is good…He literally said that the man who would’nt leave behind his wifre to serve Him was not worthy to do so…);

Matthew 19:
10.
His disciples said to him, “If there is such commitment between husband and wife, we should not get married.”*
11.
He told them, however, "This manifestation does not go down well* for everyone, except for the ones that it applies.
12.
“For there are celibates that were born from their mother’s womb like this, and there are celibates who became celibate from humanity, and there are celibates who became celibate of their own free will,for the sake of the Kingdom of heaven. Whoever can do without it, let them be without it.”

***Hi, 2ndGen!

…exactly why a firmly state that non-Catholic Christians, at least the ones I’ve come to know through personal or online exchange, do a lot of selective reading of the Holy Scriptures… that, or they apply their own “inspired” interpretations to Scriptures… though they end up rejecting Jesus Himself (…if you love me you would abide in my word/commandment, etc.), they cannot see it. :banghead:

Maran atha!

Angel***

 

[jcrichton]

Where in The Holy Bible does it state that we are saved through “faith alone”?

Satan believes in Jesus,
is he “saved”?

I know where in The Holy Bible it states that we are “not” saved through faith alone:

======================================

James 2:

Faith Without Works Is Dead

14 What does it profit, my brethren,
if someone says he has faith but does not have works?
Can faith save him?

(And if “that’s” not enough for ya’, here’s the rest of the teaching):

15
If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food,

16
and one of you says to them,
“Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,”
but you do not give them the things which are needed
for the body,
what does it profit?

17
Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

18
But someone will say,
“You have faith, and I have works.”
Show me your faith without your works,
and I will show you my faith by my works.

19
You believe that there is one God.
You do well.
Even the demons believe—and tremble!

20
But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?

21
Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar?

22
Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect?

23
And the Scripture was fulfilled which says,
“Abraham believed God,
and it was accounted to him for righteousness.”
And he was called the friend of God.

24
You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.

25
Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers
and sent them out another way?

26
For as the body without the spirit is dead,
so faith without works is dead also.

***Hi, 2ndGen!

…yeah, but St. James did not mean that, not really… well if he did, removing that book from the Bible solves that problem, right… :banghead: :banghead:

…that’s where the removing and re-instating, and re-removing books from the Bible came in… yet non-Catholic Christians do not see that as a huge error of faith in man and rejection of God…

…somehow the reformists got an updated list from the Holy Spirit where he told them that He had made a mistake or rather that the three Councils in the 4th century were overzealous in their devotion to serve that they included more books than what was necessary, and He just didn’t have it in His heart to tell them they were wrong… so He gave their efforts a few centuries before correcting the error!

Maran atha!

Angel

---

 

[jcrichton]

Catholic apologists often quote James 2:24 to make this point, but can you quote any other passage that corroborates this interpretation?

Let us have a closer look at the context. James 2:14 says “How does it help, my brothers, when someone who has never done a single good act claims to have faith? Will that faith bring salvation?”. James then goes on to say in 2:15-17 “If one of the brothers or one of the sisters is in need of clothes and has not enough food to live on, and one of you says to them, ‘I wish you well; keep yourself warm and eat plenty,’ without giving them these bare necessities of life, then what good is that? In the same way faith, if good deeds do not go with it, is quite dead.”

This can reasonably be interpreted that James is talking about those who “claim to have faith” (direct quote), but whose actions show their faith to be “quite dead”. He is saying that faith without works will not gain you salvation, not because works are needed, but because true faith always evinces works, and without such works, your faith is dead and thus cannot save you.

This interpretation is supported by the fact that James type of reference occurs only once (no matter how many Bible versions you quote), but the reference to “faith alone” occurs multiple times, and is heavily stressed by Paul, often accpeted as the most knowledgeable of the disciples.

***Hi, WayneTalbot!

I think that the faith alone argument is due to definition:

As a Catholic I know that it is God’s Grace that Saves; I cannot have done anything for His Gift. But also as a Catholic I know that my Salvation cannot be demonstrated by refusing to change the old nature for the new. St. James tells us that we cannot claim Salvation from the lips but from the heart. It is very similar to Jesus revelation that food does not contaminate the body but that the words (which includes thoughts) do because they come from what we have stored in our hearts. Jesus’ insistance that if we are to be His disciples we must hate ourselves and the world around us is basically in the same vein: Faith must be demonstrated not simply pronounced ("Not all who call me Lord, Lord will enter into the Kindgom of Heaven; but the ones that obey the Father’s Commands–paraphrased).

From what I’ve learn from several non-Catholic Christian, non-Catholics think that Catholics believe that we are saved by observing the Mosaic Laws; hence the arguments.

Maran atha!

Angel***

 

[believer112]

I take your point, but I was using today’s anti-discrimination laws, not to impose today’s standards on history, but simply to illustrate the point that discrimination fosters hatred, and again, I emphasis the word fosters.
This is not new knowledge, evolved over the centuries, this has always been known, that discrimination leads to more discrimination, and left to simmer, will grow to hatred.
Because people ignore this spiritually, secular authorities have seen fit to legislate so that those not spiritually guided will know that it is wrong.
Jesus taught this, in His message to love one another, to not gossip, to not bear false witness, all those statements that were used to illustrate that if you truly understand what it means to love one another, you don’t really need commandments about stealing, honouring, coveting, etc, i.e. you do not need commandments telling you how not to harm your neighbour, you just need to know - do not harm at all.
Discrimination against people is evil, it contravenes the commandment to love one another. Jesus preached it, the secular community of the 20th Century realised it and passed laws, but somehow Pope Paul IV and his successors chose to ignore it.

Explain to me how placing restrictions on Jew-Christian interactions is not discrimination. Did Jesus Himself not commune with prostitutes, tax collectors, sinners, and non-believers of all kind? Can you explain why you suggest that it is acceptable for the Pope to ignore the example of Jesus in this instance? Do you really believe that this is appropriate behaviour, do you advocate it yourself?

Let me repeat, since it seems that I have not managed to communicate successfully, that I have not said anything about Pope Paul hating, or calling for the killing of Jews (at least I hope not, I was in error if I did). What I have said is that he wrote instructions that called for discrimination against the Jews, and as most people understand, discrimination fosters ( that word again) hatred.

You may argue against the point that discrimination fosters hatred, but it is unreasonable to contend that I have said anything about the Pope’s intentions regarding hate or killing, I said nothing about that, nor did I mean to imply that.

The written document DOES PROVE ERROR - the Pope intended to discriminate.

Now you may argue that discriminating against the Jews is not error, is not in contravention of God’s commandment to love one another - I am eager to hear defence on that issue.

What you say is true, and I apologise that I misused this event. What I was attempting to point out was that your contention that the Jews were not aroused to war over the Pope’s Papal Bull of 1555 is not evidence that they did not feel persecuted. I mentioned the Holocaust, yes, but I also mentioned the numerous other periods when the Jews were persecuted, yet no war ensued. Remove the Holocaust from the list, then re-examine my statement. Does it still hold true, or untrue?

… continued

Discrimination does not lead to hate , and restrictions
of interactions between people does not foster hate.

The greatest example of this is that you and I are having this discussion .The apostles originally discriminated against the Gentiles. and would not teach them the Good News. in fact , St. Peter himself supported the idea .The Gentiles were to be excluded from hearing the Good News. He originally forbade the apostles from teaching and interacting with the Romans, Greeks and other races.

Does this mean that the apostles hated the Gentiles ?
The answer is NO … Does this mean that they were in error
even after the Holy Spirit came upon them ? The answer is still NO.

Restrictions do not automatically lead to discrimination , and discrimination does not always equal hate.

May God bless you and yours with spritiually bounteous New Year.

 

[jcrichton]

I bet you they don’t know that Martin Luther defended Mary’s Immaculate Conception, her perpetual virginity and that he prayed to her! His fellows Zwigli and Calvin also defended Mary!

I like to ask them where the Reformer’s leaders wrong then or are “they” wrong now?
LOL!

***Hi, 2ndGen!

Thanks for the links, I’ll be checking them ASAP!

…problem with Martin Luther’s followers is that they cannot see anything wrong with his teachings since that would determine that they are basing their belief structure on the flaws of their leader; so they ignore history or excuse his basic theology as “forced to comply,” and they accept only that portion that protests against the Church. They’ve become experts at dismantling the Church as they seek to authenticate their “church.” But without historical precedence they are frustrated–hence the various stories of lost, hidden or unknown status of the true “Christian Church” of which they are the authentic heirs.

Maran atha!

Angel***

 

[2ndGen]

***Hi, Wayne Talbot!

…so you believe that the Catholic Church employs special “storm troopers” to track down dissenters and forcefully bring them back to a Catholic Parish?

Maran atha!

Angel***

People really don’t make sense to me when they make statements such as Wayne’s.

They act as if we break into people’s homes with gun’s at their head and “force” them to join and remain in The Church as if none of the 1.1+ Billion Catholics are under some form of mass hallucination.

Why can’t someone just ane to be Catholic because they want to be Catholic? The Church is made up of over a Billion people (by their on will) who have a Billion different ways of being Catholics.

 

[2ndGen]

***Hi, 2ndGen!

…exactly why a firmly state that non-Catholic Christians, at least the ones I’ve come to know through personal or online exchange, do a lot of selective reading of the Holy Scriptures… that, or they apply their own “inspired” interpretations to Scriptures… though they end up rejecting Jesus Himself (…if you love me you would abide in my word/commandment, etc.), they cannot see it. :banghead:

Maran atha!

Angel***

It’s funny how they criticize us for "not"knowing scripture and for not being scriptural, but I refer them to scriptures that they seem to “not” be taught in their churches by their religiuos leaders.

There are some books that they don’t study entirely. They are led away from certain scriptures (like James) and they focus on a few select scriptures.

I’ve been to alot of Protestant services. Every week, (I kid you not) the messages is the same. There’s no organized delivery of the sermon. They don’t expand beyond what their doctrines are and that’s ok, but when their doctrines are limited to a very few doctrines, it really limits their spiritual growth. I believe that this lacking in theology and revelation is the main cause of this “fill in the blanks” manner of their worship.

They sing and dance about 3/4’s of the service leaving 1/4 for actual teaching.

But, if that’s how they want to be Christians, so be it. The only time that I think about what they lack is when they criticize us. It’s just amazing at how much they “don’t” know.

I’ve worshipped with some Christians who never once consider what I do or don’t do as a Christian. They were true Christians. They didn’t concern themselves with my way of practicing. I imagine that “that’s” how God would want us to be.

If one is strong in their faith, then they don’t worry about what anybody else is “not” doing or what they “are” doing.

 

[2ndGen]

***Hi, 2ndGen!

…yeah, but St. James did not mean that, not really… well if he did, removing that book from the Bible solves that problem, right… :banghead: :banghead:

…that’s where the removing and re-instating, and re-removing books from the Bible came in… yet non-Catholic Christians do not see that as a huge error of faith in man and rejection of God…

…somehow the reformists got an updated list from the Holy Spirit where he told them that He had made a mistake or rather that the three Councils in the 4th century were overzealous in their devotion to serve that they included more books than what was necessary, and He just didn’t have it in His heart to tell them they were wrong… so He gave their efforts a few centuries before correcting the error!

Maran atha!

Angel

---

Here’s the drill:

Create the alternative bible (the Protestant version) claiming that the original Bible is corrupt. They used all the books. Then they took some books out. Then they put them back in. Then they took them out again. Then they put them back in stating that while they aren’t the inspired word of God, their worthy of reading.

Well, if they aren’t the inspired word of God,
then aren’t they guilty of adding books to The Bible
(which is only supposed to be The Word of God)?

It’s like looking at the sky and saying that it’s not blue!
But everybody else and you see that it’s blue.
Then, when you ask them when what color it is,
they only repeat that “it’s not blue!”

 

[jcrichton]

That reminds me of how protestants downplay the importance of works and sacrifice in salvation. Christ dying on the cross was a sacrificial work,and it was also a teaching by example of love unto death.

***Hi, anthony!

…His words to the Disciples were (paraphrased):

I no longer call you servants but friends…

(then He punches through)

…a friend is He who gives His Life for His friends!

…no wonder that ole hymn was so right: “…what a friend we have in Jesus…”

Maran atha!

Angel***

 

[jcrichton]

Why can’t someone just ane to be Catholic because they want to be Catholic? The Church is made up of over a Billion people (by their on will) who have a Billion different ways of being Catholics.

***Hi, 2ndGen!

…this reminds me of how the Church is supposed to not only teach a Doctrine but also enforce it:

i.e: don’t Catholics use contraceptives, have abortions, disregard the Church’s teachings on “x,” etc.

Did Christ send His disciples around town, checking for those who were simply hearers of His Docrtines?

Maran atha!

Angel***