Protestants: Where is the Bible in the Bible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JMJ_coder
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Here’s a quote from Martin Luther:

“Mary is the Mother of Jesus and the Mother of all of us even though it was Christ alone who reposed on her knees . . . If he is ours, we ought to be in his situation; there where he is, we ought also to be and all that he has ought to be ours, and his mother is also our mother. (Sermon, Christmas, 1529).”

…maybe you should question your protestant forebearer why he said this.

The thing is …

You cannot have Jesus as your King if you don’t have Mary as your Queen.
Martin Luther was right, and bythe way he did not set out to start his own religion, rather he rightly objected to the selling of indulgences, and he was more Catholic than most leaders of his time.It was the people who demanded he begin his church, and he deliberated a long time before giving in. As for why catholics revere Mary so much, it is because she was a perfect creation of God and had to be to bear the Son Of The Most High to the world. She was the first Christian, and also the definitive woman of virtue. As Jesus revered her as mother, so should we as we are the body of Christ. This does NOT mean that we should or are tought to as catholics, hail her above Jesus, or worship her in any way, as she only points to Him, as at the wedding at Cana “Do as he tells you”. We only ask her to petition Jesus on our behalf. Surely, though this woman of Mary MUST be held in high esteem by all the other Saints in Heaven as she consented to God’s will and bore and raised the Savior Of The Human Race! As to all of this, the scriptues and earliest church traditions are full of examples. A good Catholic appologist can show what scriptures besides the one quoted here support these ideas.

God Bless And Keep Us All In His Love And Service!
brother dan mac
 
Sure, and the world was flat… at least that was the story that had been told since who knows when by very knowledgable and smart men. Oral tradition, can’t ALWAYS trust it… Especially when the quotes you use are men that lived WAY after the apostles were gone and not ONE that was an apostle who lived during that time. Or even ONE person who lived during that time.

Look at Urban Legends…
What many people just don’t “get” is that the Catholic church has protected oral tradition since day one. That’s why we have a Pope. We’re not just a bunch of people orally passing stories around.
 
guanophore;2783814]The Christian life does not consist of an “exhaustive list”, justasking. It is a way of being in the world, a perspective on life. and a manner in which the Truth of Jesus is lived and expressed. This is what Jesus taught His disciples. This is what was committed to the Apostles, who chose faithful men who could teach others also.
So in reality its a useless claim since it appears to have no substance. If you want to use Sacred Traditions as a defense for the catholicism then you are going to need to show specific examples of it so we can examine it.
You remind me of the man who asked Jesus:
“Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” Mark 10:17
You notice Jesus did not give him a “list” of things to do?
Better to live by I Thessalonians 5:21. That is a command for all Christians.
No, they parallel them. The NT was formed out of the Sacred Oral Traditions, and represents them.
Do we agree then that there is no such thing as an “oral tradition” of the apostles that is not in written form in the NT?
In the Catechism of the Catholic Church, for starters. One can also study the creeds, liturgy, and the prayers of the Church.
The problem with this approach is that its impossible to discern what a Tradition is by merely reading the catechism. Secondly who decides what a Sacred Tradition is vs a regular tradition? What criteria does the church use?
The other issue is: are these Traditions also inerrant-inspired as the scriptures are? How does one know?
 
No, people have free will to accept the truth or not. The story of me calling my dad a “heathen” when I was 5 will still be a true story 2,000 years from now. My son could write down and it would be documented. Just like the ECF writing down what they were taught.
This is not the only issue. What do you do when catholics are commanded to believe in the assumption of Mary when its not mentioned in scripture and unknown for centuries. In this case there are no eyewitness accounts you can go. There is nothing for centuries.
 
God decided it. The He told them what to put in the bible.
God did it through His Church.
Sometimes, and I am being quite honest here, I think you could be a good politition Manny. "Keep in mind the Bible is a collection of books stories, from the five books of Moses, historical books, prophetic books.
" I am sorry if I find the inspired Word of God more than just a collection of stories and books. 😊 But anything God touches is more than just ‘stories’.

The more accurate description of the Bible is this:

Bible refers to the canonical collections of religious writings or books of Judaism and Christianity containing both Old Testament and New Testment. It is story about God’s relationship with his beloved human beings.
Not exactly. The time that followed Christ letters were written to church’s for them to follow. Maybe not while Christ was alive but then, they had the live - real thing so letters were not required. We got the New Testament FROM those letters. So, they DID exist before the bible was put in its current form, hence the bible DID exist in Peter and Paul’s time.
The Letters came from parchment or manuscripts or scrolls. They weren’t binded together. These scrolls were scattered throughout the Empire. There were some letters that were destroyed because the Pagan Roman Emperor issued an eddict rewarding anyone who find any letter or writings from the Apostles. You also have to take into account that Letters take years to reach from one church to the next.

The Bible had the canon of scripture binded together or interwoven today. We don’t see that in the Early Days. The Scriptures the Apostle used were Old Testament scrolls. The letters were written 10-30 after the ascension of the Lord.
Doesn’t seem to have made a huge difference. 😦 How someone could discount the bible, God’s inspired WORD, as simple stories is beyond me.
We aren’t discounted the Bible. We are merely telling the facts how Biblical Canon came into being. The Church inspired by the Holy Spirit put it together. This is history.
What does this have to do with my assertion that the bible existed in another form BEFORE it’s current form???
The Scripture at the time of the Apostles were OT which included the Deutrocanonical Books (which are missing in the Protestant Bible).
Again, POINT? GOD decided they didn’t belong. Then HE told the church what to include. This was not the church’s decision but GOD’S. It still doesn’t refute the fact that those that were included existed before the bible was put into it’s current form. You have a hard time agreeing to this. Show me where the letters that are in the bible were written AFTER the church put the bible into it’s current form…
The Church inspired by God did so. God didn’t come down and wrote a list of the Canonical Books. It was the bishops and Popes under God’s inspiring to made the list. How come you don’t seem to grasp that.

It seem to me that I said, the Church did it without God’s intervention. I have repeated this time and time again, that Church, whom Christ founded, compiled which Books ought to be in the Bible. They did this so under the influence of the Holy Spirit.
Nope, God did…
The God did and he used His Church to do so.
The bible existed but not in it’s current form. Why is this so hard??? Did the new church NOT follow the instructions and teachings of the letters (which are included in the bible we have today)? These writings existed before the bible’s current form but it doesn’t make them less valid or that the bible just magically appeared one day because some men in a council decided what books would be included. They followed those teachings as we do today (from reading it in the bible in it’s current form). It’s kind of exciting to know that the words I read in the bible are the same ones that the early church’s read as new believers.
The OT did existed before the Church was established. It was the Catholic Church who added 27 NT into Scripture in the Council of Hippo 392, and Council of Carthage 396 AD. The Pope then ratified the Biblical Canon.
I am not ignoring history. Just trying to give the credit where credit is due… GOD. ALL through Him is perfect. Man screws it up.
Man screw up? Did not God inspired men to write Scripture. Likewise the Church Leaders inspired by the Holy Spirit compiled a list of the Biblical Canon. I think your comment that man screw it up is incorrect and erroneous.
 
john 19:26-27 in no way says that Mary is our mother. This is simply another far stretch. It isn’t so. Jesus was solidifying his early family with his mother and his brother. This is really simple to see. Why don’t you get it? It is because you aren’t permitted to access your own conscience or thinking. I will continue to use the knowledge and understanding that God gives me.
Sorry, but I think this is far from a far stretch. Why is it a stretch to assert that John (The apostle who Jesus loved) could represent in a deeper level the whole of Christian faith? You must believe that there are symbols and types in the Bible. How can one read Revelation and not obviously see symbols.

Doesn’t make much sense for Jesus to give his mother to one of his disciples, a non-family member, when we all can agree he had many relatives alive at the time. Or, maybe, just maybe, he was establishing his Christian family by giving his mother to us. You refuse to see any meaning past the blatant words? Seems like a dire time in Jesus’ life to be taking care of the family business if thats all you take from this. Jesus knew he would die, why didn’t he give his mother to John when he wasn’t on the cross, maybe 2 days before, or heck maybe 4 months before, if he wasn’t trying to tell us all something important about our new spiritual family. Protestants and Catholics alike all love thinking of symbolism that the Water and Blood that comes out of Christ’s side on the Cross could be. Do you not agree that every thing that happened to Christ while he was dying was ultra-meaningful outside of the obvious observations?

Stop refusing the gifts Christ has given us! Mary is not a burden, she is a blessing.
 
Sorry, but I think this is far from a far stretch. Why is it a stretch to assert that John (The apostle who Jesus loved) could represent in a deeper level the whole of Christian faith? You must believe that there are symbols and types in the Bible. How can one read Revelation and not obviously see symbols.

Doesn’t make much sense for Jesus to give his mother to one of his disciples, a non-family member, when we all can agree he had many relatives alive at the time. Or, maybe, just maybe, he was establishing his Christian family by giving his mother to us. You refuse to see any meaning past the blatant words? Seems like a dire time in Jesus’ life to be taking care of the family business if thats all you take from this. Jesus knew he would die, why didn’t he give his mother to John when he wasn’t on the cross, maybe 2 days before, or heck maybe 4 months before, if he wasn’t trying to tell us all something important about our new spiritual family. Protestants and Catholics alike all love thinking of symbolism that the Water and Blood that comes out of Christ’s side on the Cross could be. Do you not agree that every thing that happened to Christ while he was dying was ultra-meaningful outside of the obvious observations?

Stop refusing the gifts Christ has given us! Mary is not a burden, she is a blessing.
If Jesus is making Mary the mother of the church why then don’t we see any of the apostles teaching this? Its not even hinted at in the NT letters.
 
This passage says nothing about Mary being the mother of the church.
To you who refuse to see it, your are right.

It’s a shame Protestants limit themselves to a book that they themselves can’t agree on. It is true, it’s the written Word of God, but do you really think that’s all Christ left us? He said he would not leave us orphans, so he left us a book we can’t agree on? (Please do not take this as criticism toward the Bible, I believe it is required to have the written Word of God, but I also believe that God’s Word is incomplete without the authority passed by the apostles.)
 
It occurred to me last night that when Protestants claim they don’t obey the “Traditions of Men” they mean the CC as it is today.

Is that the case?

When we Catholics say “Bible and Tradition” we mean Apostolic Tradition as in Acts.

The Magesterium is like controlled evolution. Beliefs start springing out, and the Magesterium has to discern if it is Biblical or not. Heresies, Trinity, etc. by which Authority?
 
To you who refuse to see it, your are right.

It’s a shame Protestants limit themselves to a book that they themselves can’t agree on. It is true, it’s the written Word of God, but do you really think that’s all Christ left us? He said he would not leave us orphans, so he left us a book we can’t agree on? (Please do not take this as criticism toward the Bible, I believe it is required to have the written Word of God, but I also believe that God’s Word is incomplete without the authority passed by the apostles.)
This has nothing to do with those who refuse to “see it”. Look at the context and the verses themselves and there is nothing about Mary being mother of the church. Not even an infallible authority can make the Scriptures say something it does not.
 
When the Bible was compiled, it was not compiled for the purpose of being the sole rule of faith.
 
When the Bible was compiled, it was not compiled for the purpose of being the sole rule of faith.
You are absolutely right. But, everything else in the church must be established within the authority of Scripture. In the case of the Catholic church, I believe that there are many things that do not square with the Bible.
 
This is not the only issue. What do you do when catholics are commanded to believe in the assumption of Mary when its not mentioned in scripture and unknown for centuries. In this case there are no eyewitness accounts you can go. There is nothing for centuries.
Well, actually you got it the other way around. The assumption was the belief of the early christians and even the apostles. It has only been officially defined in 1950.

The doctrine of the Assumption says that at the end of her life on earth Mary was assumed, body and soul, into heaven, just as Enoch, Elijah, and perhaps others had been before her. It’s also necessary to keep in mind what the Assumption is not. Some people think Catholics believe Mary “ascended” into heaven. That’s not correct. Christ, by his own power, ascended into heaven. Mary was assumed or taken up into heaven by God. She didn’t do it under her own power.

The Church has never formally defined whether she died or not, and the integrity of the doctrine of the Assumption would not be impaired if she did not in fact die, but the almost universal consensus is that she did die. Pope Pius XII, in Munificentissimus Deus (1950), defined that Mary, “after the completion of her earthly life” (note the silence regarding her death), “was assumed body and soul into the glory of heaven.”

The possibility of a bodily assumption before the Second Coming is suggested by Matthew 27:52–53: “[T]he tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many.” Did all these Old Testament saints die and have to be buried all over again? There is no record of that, but it is recorded by early Church writers that they were assumed into heaven, or at least into that temporary state of rest and happiness often called “paradise,” where the righteous people from the Old Testament era waited until Christ’s resurrection (cf. Luke 16:22, 23:43; Heb. 11:1–40; 1 Pet. 4:6), after which they were brought into the eternal bliss of heaven.

No Remains

There is also what might be called the negative historical proof for Mary’s Assumption. It is easy to document that, from the first, Christians gave homage to saints, including many about whom we now know little or nothing. Cities vied for the title of the last resting place of the most famous saints. Rome, for example, houses the tombs of Peter and Paul, Peter’s tomb being under the high altar of St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. In the early Christian centuries relics of saints were zealously guarded and highly prized. The bones of those martyred in the Coliseum, for instance, were quickly gathered up and preserved—there are many accounts of this in the biographies of those who gave their lives for the faith.

It is agreed upon that Mary ended her life in Jerusalem, or perhaps in Ephesus. However, neither those cities nor any other claimed her remains, though there are claims about possessing her (temporary) tomb. And why did no city claim the bones of Mary? Apparently because there weren’t any bones to claim, and people knew it. Here was Mary, certainly the most privileged of all the saints, certainly the most saintly, but we have no record of her bodily remains being venerated anywhere.

For your enlightenment read on:
ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/AOFMARY.HTM
 
You are absolutely right. But, everything else in the church must be established within the authority of Scripture. In the case of the Catholic church, I believe that there are many things that do not square with the Bible.
Point blank, there is no proof from scripture or anywhere that it was meant to be the only thing we have! Let’s stop debating petty points and get back to topic.

Show us proof from the Bible (edit* or anywhere else for that matter, though you only take the Bible as authority) that it contains everything we need and it is meant to be the sole authority.

Because we can show you verses that tell us we are to hold to the things we are told orally or written. Which just so happens to be the stance the Catholic Church takes on the issue.
 
/…/ Deutrocanonical Books (7 Books, which the Protestant Bible does not have). /…/.
There are more then 7 deutrocanonical books. Really - 7 in OT and** 7 in NT**.
It’s important because of protestant’s propaganda: Catholics ADD deutero-books to Bible on XVI century.
 
To you who refuse to see it, your are right.

It’s a shame Protestants limit themselves to a book that they themselves can’t agree on. It is true, it’s the written Word of God, but do you really think that’s all Christ left us? He said he would not leave us orphans, so he left us a book we can’t agree on? (Please do not take this as criticism toward the Bible, I believe it is required to have the written Word of God, but I also believe that God’s Word is incomplete without the authority passed by the apostles.)
You ARE critical of the Bible and folks within the Catholic church disagree with each other on what the Bible says, let alone Protestant denominations. So for that, you have a magisterium who simply just uses authority to establish one interpretation of Scripture and that settles all disputes right? It surely doesn’t make their interpretation right unless you believe that they have been given “ultimate” and supreme discenment by the Holy Spirit.
 
Point blank, there is no proof from scripture or anywhere that it was meant to be the only thing we have! Let’s stop debating petty points and get back to topic.

Show us proof from the Bible (edit* or anywhere else for that matter, though you only take the Bible as authority) that it contains everything we need and it is meant to be the sole authority.

Because we can show you verses that tell us we are to hold to the things we are told orally or written. Which just so happens to be the stance the Catholic Church takes on the issue.
When you have “changeable” authorities equal to Scripture, it is then easy to waffle truth around and, make it up as you go. Scriture is not the only authority but when we we put it first, it is a level and a plumb line that holds true to EVERY situation.
 
You are absolutely right. But, everything else in the church must be established within the authority of Scripture. In the case of the Catholic church, I believe that there are many things that do not square with the Bible.
Name one and I will leave the Church today!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top