Protestants: Where is the Bible in the Bible?

[BrewMax]

I must agree. That is how doctrines, dogmas, teachings, etc. of the Church develop and continue to develop.

I can’t totally agree. The Assumption is a teaching of the Catholic church and it is found nowhere in the Bible, so how did it develop?

 

[Orionthehunter]

It doesn’t matter that the Church existed before the Bible was written and put together. That’s perfectly fine. What I was referring to is that the history and the happenings spoken of in Scripture happened before the early church and therefore sheds some very important light upon the doctrines and teachings of the church since its first inception.

But it is relevant that the people who knew Jesus (apostles and disciples) and their followers all participated in Mass & believed in the Real Presence. As they writing of Scripture and Mass/Eucharist are concurrent, it too sheds “very important light upon the doctrines and teachings of the church since its first inception.”

From BrewMax: The Assumption is a teaching of the Catholic church and it is found nowhere in the Bible, so how did it develop?

BrewMax, I suggest you better study your Bible before you cast aspersions on the Catholic Church.

Mark 16:19: So then the Lord Jesus, after he spoke to them, was taken up into heaven and took his seat at the right hand of God.

Luke 24:51: As he blessed them he parted from them and was taken up to heaven.

 

[guanophore]

I know, I have seen his posts on various threads. They are all the same. No matter that his posts have been answered, he continues on. I enjoyed your debates with him. They helped me in my faith journey. At first I thought he was really seeking truth, because a lot of his questions are valid from a Protesant point of view. But his persistance on re-asking makes me believe he is here to evangelize, not to seek Truth.

Honestly, it helped me a lot too. I learned a lot researching, and worked hard on my patience and charity. It has only been recently that I realized he was not here to learn. Now, I only answer his posts for the sake of those others that are reading. There are times when the lurkers are 10 times or more than the posters. Who knows, maybe someone our there who has a genuine desire to learn will do so! Here are some comments that helped me change my mind:

And well they should question. The scriptures warn of false teachers in the church who will decieve many. That is why you should hold your church accountable to what the scriptures teach. When you study the marian doctrines in light of the scriptures you will find that the support is not there. What you must do is be on guard against false teachers in your own church.

The scriptures do warn of false teachers in the church itself. There was no promise given by Christ that this would not happen.
Thats the issue. There are no biblical roots for these marian doctrines. Why do you believe such a thing if the scriptures never teach such a thing?

(talking about Sacred Tradition) might get someone who reads these posts to rethink their position.

"guanophore:

But you have already made it clear that you consider these “speculations of men” and false teachng that has crept into the Church, so why keep bringing it up?

i want to help others see it to.

… those things not recorded in the scriptures. The problem is that if its not in the scriptures, its not inspired-inerrant. Those things not in the scriptures are not binding though. They do not carry apostolic authority.
Keep in mind that most of these if not all of them (Marian doctrines) are not grounded in the scriptures.

(guanophore believes justasking4 is only on CAF to get Catholics to question their leadership)

And well they should question. The scriptures warn of false teachers in the church who will decieve many. That is why you should hold your church accountable to what the scriptures teach. When you study the marian doctrines in light of the scriptures you will find that the support is not there. What you must do is be on guard against false teachers in your own church. The scriptures do warn of false teachers in the church itself. There was no promise given by Christ that this would not happen. There are no biblical roots for these marian doctrines.

ja4 believes that Catholics have been “deceived by false teachings that have crept into the church”. Only when a person clings to scripture alone can one be delivered from deception.

I think not. Rather a person is less likely to be decieved. Thats what usually happens when a person beleives things not grounded in scripture.

 

[Lampo]

I can’t totally agree. The Assumption is a teaching of the Catholic church and it is found nowhere in the Bible, so how did it develop?

So is the Trinity and that word isn’t in the Bible either, but they both can be deduced from Scripture.

Gen. 5:24, Heb. 11:5 - Enoch was bodily assumed into heaven without dying. Would God do any less for Mary the Ark of the New Covenant?

2 Kings 2:11-12; 1 Mac 2:58 - Elijah was assumed into heaven in fiery chariot. Jesus would not do any less for His Blessed Mother.

Psalm 132:8 - Arise, O Lord, and go to thy resting place, thou and the Ark (Mary) of thy might. Both Jesus and Mary were taken up to their eternal resting place in heaven.

2 Cor. 12:2 - Paul speaks of a man in Christ who was caught up to the third heaven. Mary was also brought up into heaven by God.

Matt. 27:52-53 - when Jesus died and rose, the bodies of the saints were raised. Nothing in Scripture precludes Mary’s assumption into heaven.

1 Thess. 4:17 - we shall be caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air and so we shall always be with the Lord.

Rev. 12:1 - we see Mary, the “woman,” clothed with the sun. While in Rev. 6:9 we only see the souls of the martyrs in heaven, in Rev. 12:1 we see Mary, both body and soul.

2 Thess. 2:15 - Paul instructs us to hold fast to oral (not just written) tradition. Apostolic tradition says Mary was assumed into heaven. While claiming the bones of the saints was a common practice during these times (and would have been especially important to obtain Mary’s bones as she was the Mother of God), Mary’s bones were never claimed. This is because they were not available. Mary was taken up body and soul into heaven.

 

[BrewMax]

But it is relevant that the people who knew Jesus (apostles and disciples) and their followers all participated in Mass & believed in the Real Presence. As they writing of Scripture and Mass/Eucharist are concurrent, it too sheds “very important light upon the doctrines and teachings of the church since its first inception.”

BrewMax, I suggest you better study your Bible before you cast aspersions on the Catholic Church.

Mark 16:19: So then the Lord Jesus, after he spoke to them, was taken up into heaven and took his seat at the right hand of God.

Luke 24:51: As he blessed them he parted from them and was taken up to heaven.

I was speaking of the Assumption of Mary into Heaven.

 

[BrewMax]

So is the Trinity and that word isn’t in the Bible either, but they both can be deduced from Scripture.

Gen. 5:24, Heb. 11:5 - Enoch was bodily assumed into heaven without dying. Would God do any less for Mary the Ark of the New Covenant?

2 Kings 2:11-12; 1 Mac 2:58 - Elijah was assumed into heaven in fiery chariot. Jesus would not do any less for His Blessed Mother.

Psalm 132:8 - Arise, O Lord, and go to thy resting place, thou and the Ark (Mary) of thy might. Both Jesus and Mary were taken up to their eternal resting place in heaven.

2 Cor. 12:2 - Paul speaks of a man in Christ who was caught up to the third heaven. Mary was also brought up into heaven by God.

Matt. 27:52-53 - when Jesus died and rose, the bodies of the saints were raised. Nothing in Scripture precludes Mary’s assumption into heaven.

1 Thess. 4:17 - we shall be caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air and so we shall always be with the Lord.

Rev. 12:1 - we see Mary, the “woman,” clothed with the sun. While in Rev. 6:9 we only see the souls of the martyrs in heaven, in Rev. 12:1 we see Mary, both body and soul.

2 Thess. 2:15 - Paul instructs us to hold fast to oral (not just written) tradition. Apostolic tradition says Mary was assumed into heaven. While claiming the bones of the saints was a common practice during these times (and would have been especially important to obtain Mary’s bones as she was the Mother of God), Mary’s bones were never claimed. This is because they were not available. Mary was taken up body and soul into heaven.

We just keep going in circles with this. This is not the proper thread to be discussing this either but I will respond by saying that these are all Catholic assumptions from Scripture that undergo lots of gymnastics. Surely God could take anyone into heaven body and soul but nowhere is there proof that Mary was assumed this way. Enoch was as Scripture says but nowhere does it mention that Mary was. The Bible also does not name the woman in Revelation and it makes no mention of her being Ark of the New Coventant. Jesus became incarnate through Mary in the flesh. She was chosen for a special purpose as the Scriptures say, but they do not elevate her to superhuman or divine status as that statement suggests.

 

[qui_est_ce]

BrewMax:
Welcome back Brew, been waiting. It’s late, so I won’t responed with much tonight. More tomorrow. Keep coming back!:yup:

 

[BrewMax]

Welcome back Brew, been waiting. It’s late, so I won’t responed with much tonight. More tomorrow. Keep coming back!:yup:

thank you. It’s all about the continuing search for more truth. I’m looking forward to more conversation.

 

[Lampo]

We just keep going in circles with this. This is not the proper thread to be discussing this either but I will respond by saying that these are all Catholic assumptions from Scripture that undergo lots of gymnastics. Surely God could take anyone into heaven body and soul but nowhere is there proof that Mary was assumed this way. Enoch was as Scripture says but nowhere does it mention that Mary was. The Bible also does not name the woman in Revelation and it makes no mention of her being Ark of the New Coventant. Jesus became incarnate through Mary in the flesh. She was chosen for a special purpose as the Scriptures say, but they do not elevate her to superhuman or divine status as that statement suggests.

Very true about the circles, but since you brought it up again I thought I should respond. Here are a few traditions of men that aren’t in the Bible: 1.) Sola Scriptura, 2) OSAS, 3)altar calls, 4) the sinner’s prayer, 5) Wednesday night Bible study, 6) Sunday as the Sabbath

You mention that the Assumption is a Catholic “assumption.” Here are a few others: 1) the Trinity, 2)the Canon of Scripture that we haver today, 3)the Bible as the inerrant word of God.

It seems that your continued response to some of Catholic teaching is, “can be found nowhere in Scripture.” You need to keep in mind that the Catholic Church believes the ENTIRE word of God is the sole rule of faith - written and spoken form - Tradition (2 Thes. 2:15, 2 Tim 2:2, 1 Cor 11:2, 1 Thes. 2:13.) YOUR underlying assumption is that to be considered Christian, it must be explicitly found in Scripture. The Church uses Scripture and Tradition; albeit Scripture is a form of Tradition in a sense. Do you realize that you rely on the authority of the Catholic Church on some things and not others? What makes you think She is wrong on some things but right on others? Your own eisegesis/interpretation? Remember, His Church was the only thing given the promise to be protected from the gates of Hell.

Jesus’ Church is authoritative - 1 Tim. 3:15. Since you and I disagree on several or many passages of Scripture, whom should we take our dispute? John 17:11 says the Church is one as Jesus and God are one. Can the Father and Son disagree on doctrine? They believe the same thing about matters of faith & morals. There is only one truth. Jesus’ Church cannot have conflicting doctrines! Eph. 4:4-5 says one body, one spirit, one Lord, one faith and one baptism.

 

[agangbern]

Very true about the circles, but since you brought it up again I thought I should respond. Here are a few traditions of men that aren’t in the Bible: 1.) Sola Scriptura, 2) OSAS, 3)altar calls, 4) the sinner’s prayer, 5) Wednesday night Bible study, 6) Sunday as the Sabbath

You mention that the Assumption is a Catholic “assumption.” Here are a few others: 1) the Trinity, 2)the Canon of Scripture that we haver today, 3)the Bible as the inerrant word of God.

It seems that your continued response to some of Catholic teaching is, “can be found nowhere in Scripture.” You need to keep in mind that the Catholic Church believes the ENTIRE word of God is the sole rule of faith - written and spoken form - Tradition (2 Thes. 2:15, 2 Tim 2:2, 1 Cor 11:2, 1 Thes. 2:13.) YOUR underlying assumption is that to be considered Christian, it must be explicitly found in Scripture. The Church uses Scripture and Tradition; albeit Scripture is a form of Tradition in a sense. Do you realize that you rely on the authority of the Catholic Church on some things and not others? What makes you think She is wrong on some things but right on others? Your own eisegesis/interpretation? Remember, His Church was the only thing given the promise to be protected from the gates of Hell.

Jesus’ Church is authoritative - 1 Tim. 3:15. Since you and I disagree on several or many passages of Scripture, whom should we take our dispute? John 17:11 says the Church is one as Jesus and God are one. Can the Father and Son disagree on doctrine? They believe the same thing about matters of faith & morals. There is only one truth. Jesus’ Church cannot have conflicting doctrines! Eph. 4:4-5 says one body, one spirit, one Lord, one faith and one baptism.

I agree with lampo!

 

[qui_est_ce]

thank you. It’s all about the continuing search for more truth. I’m looking forward to more conversation.

OK, I’m back, on a limited basis today. Brew, you are Sola Scriptura, right? Are you also Sola Fides? I can’t remember. I just want to see where you are coming from.

Thanks

 

[MariaG]

Was the Mass Liturgy taught in a native language? I know that it was preached in the Latin language in America quite recently or is the Mass Liturgy different than Mass itself?

Since the accusation of heresy is being thrown around, what about the babylonianism heresy and its influence on the Catholic Church?

Babylonianism is something I am finding that explains the origins of controversial Catholic doctrines. If it is true than it explains everything to me. I have only recently found this subject and have only done limited searches on it. Is there an official Catholic response to these accusations?

These are accusations from Jack Chick tracts. If you are reseaching the Catholic Church from sites like this, not only will you not find out what the Catholic Church actually teaches, your head will be filled with lies like the above.

Seriously, you need to find reputable sites for your information and not those Jack Chick or Jack Chick wannabes.

Jack Chick lies about so many things about the Catholic Church, it is a serious offense that he will be held accountable for bearing false witness.

Start a new thread on this and most all here can rip these accusations to shreds. These lies about the Catholic Church are Satans biggest accomplishment since the Garden of Eden.

 

[Orionthehunter]

I was speaking of the Assumption of Mary into Heaven.

You are correct. I confused the Ascension with Assumption. My error.

And you are correct that Scripture doesn’t directly say that Mary was assumed into Heaven as a fact because Scripture was written in some places prior to her death and by people who were not direct witnesses to her death and Assumption. This does not however mean that it didn’t take place. Revelation 12 prophesyzes that Mary was protected from “the dragon” which is one of the biblical supprts for this dogma.

And you are correct that it an “invention” of the Church. However, you need to read the entire encyclical for you to understand fully the context from which this dogma came to be understood as it flowed out of the Church (the mystical Body of Christ). vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus_en.html

 

[BrewMax]

Very true about the circles, but since you brought it up again I thought I should respond. Here are a few traditions of men that aren’t in the Bible: 1.) Sola Scriptura, 2) OSAS, 3)altar calls, 4) the sinner’s prayer, 5) Wednesday night Bible study, 6) Sunday as the Sabbath

You mention that the Assumption is a Catholic “assumption.” Here are a few others: 1) the Trinity, 2)the Canon of Scripture that we haver today, 3)the Bible as the inerrant word of God.

It seems that your continued response to some of Catholic teaching is, “can be found nowhere in Scripture.” You need to keep in mind that the Catholic Church believes the ENTIRE word of God is the sole rule of faith - written and spoken form - Tradition (2 Thes. 2:15, 2 Tim 2:2, 1 Cor 11:2, 1 Thes. 2:13.) YOUR underlying assumption is that to be considered Christian, it must be explicitly found in Scripture. The Church uses Scripture and Tradition; albeit Scripture is a form of Tradition in a sense. Do you realize that you rely on the authority of the Catholic Church on some things and not others? What makes you think She is wrong on some things but right on others? Your own eisegesis/interpretation? Remember, His Church was the only thing given the promise to be protected from the gates of Hell.

Jesus’ Church is authoritative - 1 Tim. 3:15. Since you and I disagree on several or many passages of Scripture, whom should we take our dispute? John 17:11 says the Church is one as Jesus and God are one. Can the Father and Son disagree on doctrine? They believe the same thing about matters of faith & morals. There is only one truth. Jesus’ Church cannot have conflicting doctrines! Eph. 4:4-5 says one body, one spirit, one Lord, one faith and one baptism.

First of all, I do not believe in sola scriptura. Next, the Trinity can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt by about 20 Scripture verses and the entire preachings of Christ himself also proves this. I didn’t hear Jesus preaching about deep devotions to Mary. In fact Luke 11:26-28 shows this clearly. What we seem to be diminishing here is that many traditions ARE Scriptural. Much of what the Catholic church practices is in fact Scriptural. Try getting most Protestants to say that.

Your statement that my position is that I believe in some of what Catholicism teaches but not all could be found true with most all folks in all churches. Your position is that the Catholic church contains all truth. My position is that God is all truth and he gave us his inspired word to be the closest and most accurate item to be with us. I can hardly dispute this because we have that same word now 2,000 years later. The Church has changed, the Scriptures have not. Is tradition important? Of course it is, but it must square with Scripture.

Your statement of relying upon the authority of the church really goes back to the early Christian church that Jesus founded. You can argue that the Catholic church was the early church and the Orthodox Christians will argue with you on that.

We don’t have Wednesday night Bible study but what is wrong with that? This is not a tradition. Breathing is not a tradition either but we couldn’t do it without the grace of God.

 

[Lampo]

First of all, I do not believe in sola scriptura.

I didn’t say you did. That is your own interpretation of my writing.

Next, the Trinity can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt by about 20 Scripture verses

Well, here are 12 (doesn’t have to be exactly 20 does it? Or is there a mathematical formula to determine dogmas/doctrines that I’m not aware of?) verses that support the Assumption:

Gen. 5:24, Heb. 11:5 - Enoch was bodily assumed into heaven without dying. Would God do any less for Mary the Ark of the New Covenant?

2 Kings 2:11-12; 1 Mac 2:58 - Elijah was assumed into heaven in fiery chariot. Jesus would not do any less for His Blessed Mother.

Psalm 132:8 - Arise, O Lord, and go to thy resting place, thou and the Ark (Mary) of thy might. Both Jesus and Mary were taken up to their eternal resting place in heaven.

2 Cor. 12:2 - Paul speaks of a man in Christ who was caught up to the third heaven. Mary was also brought up into heaven by God.

Matt. 27:52-53 - when Jesus died and rose, the bodies of the saints were raised. Nothing in Scripture precludes Mary’s assumption into heaven.

1 Thess. 4:17 - we shall be caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air and so we shall always be with the Lord.

Rev. 12:1 - we see Mary, the “woman,” clothed with the sun. While in Rev. 6:9 we only see the souls of the martyrs in heaven, in Rev. 12:1 we see Mary, both body and soul.

2 Thess. 2:15 - Paul instructs us to hold fast to oral (not just written) tradition. Apostolic tradition says Mary was assumed into heaven. While claiming the bones of the saints was a common practice during these times (and would have been especially important to obtain Mary’s bones as she was the Mother of God), Mary’s bones were never claimed. This is because they were not available. Mary was taken up body and soul into heaven.

Your position is that the Catholic church contains all truth.

That’s my position because of 1 Tim. 3:15

Is tradition important? Of course it is, but it must square with Scripture.

Which it does.

Your statement of relying upon the authority of the church really goes back to the early Christian church that Jesus founded. You can argue that the Catholic church was the early church and the Orthodox Christians will argue with you on that.

I know.

We don’t have Wednesday night Bible study but what is wrong with that?

Nothing is wrong with it. Never said there was. Again, your misinterpretation of my statement.

This is not a tradition.

Of course it is. What else would you call it? A habit? There are many, many traditions in the world.

 

[dwhtxsports]

Your position is that the Catholic church contains all truth. My position is that God is all truth and he gave us his inspired word to be the closest and most accurate item to be with us. I can hardly dispute this because we have that same word now 2,000 years later. The Church has changed, the Scriptures have not. Is tradition important? Of course it is, but it must square with Scripture.

What you are saying here is mostly true. Yes For the most part the Bible has stayed the same (except when the deuteocanical (sp) books were deleted in the late 1500’s) but the Church has not changed. Yes there have been those in the Church who have not lived the life Christ asked of them, but if you look at all of the Dogmas of the Church you will find that they have never been contradicted by the Church, EVER. They are the same now as they were when they were 1st believed by the apostles and early church fathers. What we as Catholics believe is that Christ did not lie to Peter when he told him the gates of hell would not prevail over the Church. We furthermore believe that Christ was not lying when he gave the Church the power and responsibility to bind and loose. If one believes that Christ truly made Peter the leader of His Church on earth (which I know is the 1st and main reason for the differences), then we have to believe that the leader not only will not but CAN NOT lead us astray when it comes to teachings of the Church. That does not mean that the Church will not have some leaders (bishops, priests, deacons, and laymen) who will not teach error. We are all sinners. However, they are not the authority of the Church. The Magisterium is. When we hear what one who we believe is preaching wrongly, all we have to do is see what the Magisterium says on the matter. Jesus gave this authority the ability to interpret and teach infalliably. (Again …the gates of hell will not prevail)

This has been an interesting discussion and one that I felt pulled to make my 1st debate post in.

 

[dwhtxsports]

For those that say that Paul and the apostles did not know about certain things (Marian Doctrine, Tradition, etc.), are you implying that every sermon or preachable moment is written in Scripture. Is every second of there lives and what they did, saw, and believed in the NT? I would think the Bible would be much larger if this was the case. The problem with sola scriptura is that if that is your true belief, then so much is left out. Yes even the Trinity. This docrine was not based on Scriptural evidence alone, but what was inspired and taught to the early Church even prior to ANY written scripture.

 

[justasking4]

I know, I have seen his posts on various threads. They are all the same. No matter that his posts have been answered, he continues on. I enjoyed your debates with him. They helped me in my faith journey. At first I thought he was really seeking truth, because a lot of his questions are valid from a Protesant point of view. But his persistance on re-asking makes me believe he is here to evangelize, not to seek Truth.

What questions have i repeatedly asked? Have you noticed how they were answered? Have i asked the same questions of the same individual or did i ask different people the same types of questions with the hopes that the discussion could proceed?

Please keep in mind that guanapore is out to slander me and that is sin.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Your statement of relying upon the authority of the church really goes back to the early Christian church that Jesus founded. You can argue that the Catholic church was the early church and the Orthodox Christians will argue with you on that.

Are you sure about that?

We were the same church until Great Schism:

"Strictly speaking, the present schism dates from the Eastern repudiation of the Council of Florence (in 1472).

It is a case, perhaps the only prominent case, of a pure schism, of a breach of intercommunion caused by anger and bad feeling, not by a rival theology. " New Advent.org

I’ll ask Montalban.

 

[St_Violet]

Holy macro, I cannot believe there are people who feel that Mary is unfit to be in heaven.