Protestant Bible Superior

[SyroMalankara]

So, the Bible has no authority?

Jon

The Bible does, not myversionoftheBible2.0Editedbyme.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Well,purgation must take place, a cleansing necessary to enter His presence. That’s scriptural.
So, if one is not required to accept the idea of an intermediate state/place, I could say, yes, the Catholic doctrine, in a basic sense, is correct.

Joseph Ratzinger / Pope Benedict

Purgatory “is not, as Tertullian thought, some kind of supra-worldly concentration camp where man is forced to undergo punishment in a more or less arbitrary fashion.”​

Purgatory “is the inwardly necessary process of transformation in which a person becomes capable of Christ, capable of God and thus capable of unity with the whole communion of saints.”​

“The transforming “moment” of this encounter cannot be quantified by the measurements of earthly time.”​

Jon

Eastern Catholics do not hold to an “intermediate state” idea, nor are they or any Catholic required to, in fact Easterners have never done so. Latin Catholic theologoumena from the middle ages is not any requirement of faith, although if that makes it easier to digest for you, it’s allowable.

 

[po18guy]

So, the Bible has no authority?

Jon

Red herring! I was speaking of a psychologically challenged Augustinian monk who twisted, edited and rearranged the scriptures to suit his personal views. Is that authority? If so, then, Charles Taze Russell (JWs) had equal authority.

Being immediatley subject to human concupiscence, the written word is more easily twisted than read correctly (2 Peter 3:16). It must be read with Apostolic authority, as Christ gave to the Apostles (Luke 24:45). This goes back at least to Nehemiah 8:5-8.

 

[USMC_Convert]

The Bible has authority because the Church says it does. Remember St Augustine, when he said, I would not believe in the Bible unless the Church told me to.

The Church survived and thrived for 200-300 years without the Holy Bible, it was only once Catholicism became accepted and main stream that we were allowed to discuss and create the Bible.

 

[SolaScriptura]

The Bible has authority because the Church says it does. Remember St Augustine, when he said, I would not believe in the Bible unless the Church told me to.

Whoa!! Did you seriously mean God’s word only has authority because the Church says it does? Augustine is saying something drastically different than what you said.

The Church survived and thrived for 200-300 years without the Holy Bible, it was only once Catholicism became accepted and main stream that we were allowed to discuss and create the Bible.

First you were saying everyone a 1000 years before Lutherr agreed on the bible, now you tell us there was no bible for 200-300 years

 

[USMC_Convert]

Whoa!! Did you seriously mean God’s word only has authority because the Church says it does? Augustine is saying something drastically different than what you said.

First you were saying everyone a 1000 years before Lutherr agreed on the bible, now you tell us there was no bible for 200-300 years

The Church, under the direction of the Holy Spirit, put together the Bible, therefore, once again, they are not working against each other but with one another.

Furthermore I didn’t say that Luther agreed on the Bible but am saying that it was over a thousand years until Luther decided to go to the Jewish version of the Old Testament. It was 200-300 years after Christ’s death that the Church made the Bible.

All if this is a historically know fact… Check it out…

 

[JonNC]

The Bible does, not myversionoftheBible2.0Editedbyme.

Then virtually every Bibke including Jerome’s lacks authority.

 

[JonNC]

Eastern Catholics do not hold to an “intermediate state” idea, nor are they or any Catholic required to, in fact Easterners have never done so. Latin Catholic theologoumena from the middle ages is not any requirement of faith, although if that makes it easier to digest for you, it’s allowable.

That’s why I quote the pope. There is significant agreement regarding purgation. See the Document, "The Hope of Eternal Life "

 

[JonNC]

=po18guy;14375622]Red herring! I was speaking of a psychologically challenged Augustinian monk who twisted, edited and rearranged the scriptures to suit his personal views. Is that authority? If so, then, Charles Taze Russell (JWs) had equal authority. :eek

So, now you have authority to evaluate his psychological health?
JW’s are not Christian, and a certain Catholic translator from Dresden found Luther’s worthy of copying.

Being immediatley subject to human concupiscence, the written word is more easily twisted than read correctly (2 Peter 3:16). It must be read with Apostolic authority, as Christ gave to the Apostles (Luke 24:45). This goes back at least to Nehemiah 8:5-8.

Which apostolic authority ? There are numerous.

Jon

 

[SolaScriptura]

The Church, under the direction of the Holy Spirit, put together the Bible, therefore, once again, they are not working against each other but with one another.

Furthermore I didn’t say that Luther agreed on the Bible but am saying that it was over a thousand years until Luther decided to go to the Jewish version of the Old Testament. It was 200-300 years after Christ’s death that the Church made the Bible.

All if this is a historically know fact… Check it out…

Actually, I have checked it out. So could you share with me the facts that the church created the bible 200-300 years after Christ’s death.

 

[USMC_Convert]

Actually, I have checked it out. So could you share with me the facts that the church created the bible 200-300 years after Christ’s death.

I am not going to argue with you, this has gone beyond searching for the truth, trying to learn and openly discussing differences. Take care my friend, peace be with you…

 

[po18guy]

Whoa!! Did you seriously mean God’s word only has authority because the Church says it does?

Many seem to know this, but it bears repeating. 1. The bible is not God. 2. There was no settled New Testament until Pope Damasus I and the Church council decided the canon. 3. All Christians, many Messianic Jews and pesudo-Christians fully accept the Pope and Council’s decision on the New Testament. 4. Doing an abrupt about-face, they reject the Pope and Council on the Old Testament, preferring to be held bound by the canon of the Pharisees - the same who rejected our Lord and demanded His death. 5. While knowing that the majority of the OT quotes by our Lord and the Apostles came from the Greek Septuagint and not the Pharisaic Masoretic text. It strikes me as irrational at best.

If the written word has authority in and of itself, why is Christianity shattered into increasingly meaningless disagreeing fragments? Look at us arguing. Does it not then reflect an irrational, tri-polar God?

How is this not evidence in favor of Islam?

 

[SolaScriptura]

I am not going to argue with you, this has gone beyond searching for the truth, trying to learn and openly discussing differences. Take care my friend, peace be with you…

So if I ask you to show your facts, because I have seen different facts then it is not searching for the truth?

 

[USMC_Convert]

So if I ask you to show your facts, because I have seen different facts then it is not searching for the truth?

It’s the manner in which you do it brother…

It would do no good to show you every “proof” or “reference” in the world, you know what you know…

 

[adf417]

Actually, I have checked it out. So could you share with me the facts that the church created the bible 200-300 years after Christ’s death.

Greetings SolaScriptura, What checking have you done? Did you look into all of the early councils? Have you asked yourself the question - what was the signicance of the synods of Carthage, Hippo, and Rome? If the “church” was in perfect agreement of the canon, why were these councils needed?

Peace!!!

 

[SolaScriptura]

Many seem to know this, but it bears repeating. 1. The bible is not God. 2. There was no settled New Testament until Pope Damasus I and the Church council decided the canon. 3. All Christians, many Messianic Jews and pesudo-Christians fully accept the Pope and Council’s decision on the New Testament. 4. Doing an abrupt about-face, they reject the Pope and Council on the Old Testament, preferring to be held bound by the canon of the Pharisees - the same who rejected our Lord and demanded His death. 5. While knowing that the majority of the OT quotes by our Lord and the Apostles came from the Greek Septuagint and not the Pharisaic Masoretic text. It strikes me as irrational at best.

If the written word has authority in and of itself, why is Christianity shattered into increasingly meaningless disagreeing fragments? Look at us arguing. Does it not then reflect an irrational, tri-polar God?

How is this not evidence in favor of Islam?

1. I think everyone knows the Bible is not God, if they didn’t they should be worshipping it. 2. Pope Damasus I did not settle the canon issue as church history up to Trent shows. Many leading and prominent church fathers had different list. 3. This is factually not true. Were people such as Jerome and Pope Gregory the Great not considered all of Christians? 4. Pope Gregory the Great? 5. I don’t see how that makes a difference in the canon, because those quotes comes from book that Protestants recognize as Canon.

Why do you guys get so upset when someone does not just accept everything you say? This is a discussion forum for those with different beliefs and opinions.

 

[USMC_Convert]

1. I think everyone knows the Bible is not God, if they didn’t they should be worshipping it. 2. Pope Damasus I did not settle the canon issue as church history up to Trent shows. Many leading and prominent church fathers had different list. 3. This is factually not true. Were people such as Jerome and Pope Gregory the Great not considered all of Christians? 4. Pope Gregory the Great? 5. I don’t see how that makes a difference in the canon, because those quotes comes from book that Protestants recognize as Canon.

Why do you guys get so upset when someone does not just accept everything you say? This is a discussion forum for those with different beliefs and opinions.

Perhaps it’s the tone in this thread, or the tone in the other thread we are talking in, or a combination of both, but I’m sorry, I’m just not getting a good vibe. Ask anyone, I love to learn and I love to discuss things.

Maybe it’s just me, don’t take it to heart, maybe I’m just to grumpy and generally a pain (as my wife always tells me) but I find that I have nothing further to add to this conversation. However there are many others here much more well qualified than I to discuss this stuff. Don’t give up, get an answer!!! God Bless…

 

[SolaScriptura]

Greetings SolaScriptura, What checking have you done? Did you look into all of the early councils? Have you asked yourself the question - what was the signicance of the synods of Carthage, Hippo, and Rome? If the “church” was in perfect agreement of the canon, why were these councils needed?

Peace!!!

I’ve done some reading on the issues, and I’ve listened to some debates on the issue. Carthage and Hippo were provincial councils which is why the issue was not settled. As a matter of fact the New Catholic Encyclopedia states the following as the attitude of the Middle Ages:

newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htmIn the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages we find evidence of hesitation about the character of the deuterocanonicals. There is a current friendly to them, another one distinctly unfavourable to their authority and sacredness, while wavering between the two are a number of writers whose veneration for these books is tempered by some perplexity as to their exact standing, and among those we note St. Thomas Aquinas. Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity. The prevailing attitude of Western medieval authors is substantially that of the Greek Fathers. The chief cause of this phenomenon in the West is to be sought in the influence, direct and indirect, of St. Jerome’s depreciating Prologus. The compilatory “Glossa Ordinaria” was widely read and highly esteemed as a treasury of sacred learning during the Middle Ages; it embodied the prefaces in which the Doctor of Bethlehem had written in terms derogatory to the deuteros, and thus perpetuated and diffused his unfriendly opinion.

So I’m surprised that so many on this board seems to think the canon was settled during the time of Luther when it is clearly a fact by Catholic own sources that this is not the case.

 

[Reuben_J]

I’ve done some reading on the issues, and I’ve listened to some debates on the issue. Carthage and Hippo were provincial councils which is why the issue was not settled. As a matter of fact the New Catholic Encyclopedia states the following as the attitude of the Middle Ages:

So I’m surprised that so many on this board seems to think the canon was settled during the time of Luther when it is clearly a fact by Catholic own sources that this is not the case.

Don’t be surprised. They are right. The canon was settled long before that … Council only pronounced what have been believed, perused and practiced. It does not mean that before the proclamation by the Council, the issue was not settled.

Catholics have no problem in understanding the role of Councils which non-Catholics seem to be mistaken about.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Don’t be surprised. They are right. The canon was settled long before that … Council only pronounced what have been believed, perused and practiced. It does not mean that before the proclamation by the Council, the issue was not settled.

Catholics have no problem in understanding the role of Councils which non-Catholics seem to be mistaken about.

Well why did Popes and others continue to deny some of the books were in the canon?