Protestants: Where is the Bible in the Bible?

[qui_est_ce]

Council of Ephesus 431 declared her mother of GOD theotokos It was presided over by St. Cyril of Alexandria representing Pope Celestine I. This council also defined the true personal unity of Christ against Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople. .
.
Further Reading: www.newadvent.org/cathen/05491a.htm

Jesus=God, Mary gave birth to God the Son, one of the three persons in God, unless you share the Heretical Nestorius’s view that Jesus was inferior to God. JW’s somewhat share in this heresy, except they don’t believe in the divinity of Jesus at all.

Martin Luther also believed Mary to be the mother of God.

 

[Lampo]

Council of Ephesus 431 declared her mother of GOD theotokos It was presided over by St. Cyril of Alexandria representing Pope Celestine I. This council also defined the true personal unity of Christ against Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople. .
.
Further Reading: www.newadvent.org/cathen/05491a.htm

Martin Luther also believed Mary to be the mother of God.

I couldn’t agree more!

 

[qui_est_ce]

I couldn’t agree more!

Oops, I fell for the bait. I responded to an off the topic post. Catholics, we always fall for this!! We need to stop this!!

 

[Lampo]

Oops, I fell for the bait. I responded to an off the topic post. Catholics, we always fall for this!! We need to stop this!!

Me too. We should try to stay on topic.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Me too. We should try to stay on topic.

Lampo, have you been to this thread? I can’t remember, but it’s good too. You’ll like it.:yup:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=185317

 

[Lampo]

Allow me to ask a few questions to start things rolling again.

1. Do you believe the writer of the Gospel of Mark was inspired by the Holy Spirit? Yes or no?
2. If yes, where in the Bible does it say that the writer of the Gospel of Mark was inspired by the Holy Spirit?
3. Do you believe the writer of the Letter to the Hebrews was inspired by the Holy Spirit?
4. If yes, where in the Bible does it tell us that the writer of the Letter to the Hebrews was inspired by the Holy Spirit?
5. Where in the Bible does it tell us who the writer of the Letter to the Hebrews was?

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;2788857]It is not a “claim”, ja4, but the Truth. It may be useless to YOU because you cannot accept that something has substance and reality outside the pages of your holy writ. There is really no reason for you to “examine” it, since it is of no value or substance you as an individual. Why concern yourself about it?

If its true, then why is it so difficult to give some kind of offical list of these Sacred Traditions that the catholic church claims to have? This is certainly a legitmate request and one that i would think most catholics would want to see the “substance” of the claim. If a catholic is going to defend catholicism with Sacred Traditions then its imperative to know exactly what these Sacred Traditions are, when they began and how do they relate to the defense of catholicism.

There are some problems with your lens, ja4. You are examining with a very limited lens, that has filters, and cannot admit all the evidence. It is ok, though. You are sincere, and you are acting within the revelation that you have. I commend your soul to a faithful creator.

Thank you for the compliment. However i am most interested in the “lens” that catholics are using. Without some specfics of exactly what it is and its history i don’t see it as being useful.

Of course not! What we can agree upon is that you are not able to accept the fact that it exists, and that there are no “proofs” that meet your criteria. We can agree that you consider Sacred Tradition “speculations of men”. I think we can also agree that you have no need for it.

How do these supposed oral traditions of the apostles not recorded in the scriptures help you if you don’t know exactly what they were?

By itself, yes, but what you asked me was, where can it be found? I directed you to the catechism because that word means “faithful echoing”. In the catechism is faithfully echoed the Sacred Traditions taught by the Apostles.

Do you then think you have a “fuller of understanding” of these oral and Sacred Traditions from the catechism even though you don’t know specifically what they are?

This is an excellent question, and deserves it’s own thread. It is off topic here, I think.

Yes. We know because they originate from the same source, and are preserved by the same means, and are protected by the same promise.

 

[Lampo]

ja4:

Here are some off the top of my head that I posted earlier in no particular order:

1. Real Presence
2. All Male Priesthood
3. Infant Baptism
4. Purgatory
5. Assumption
6. Immaculate Conception
7. the name of the lady(Veronica) that gave Jesus a cloth to wipe His face when He was carrying His cross.
8. Sabbath on Sundays(am I saying that right?)
9. Canon of Scripture

 

[Lampo]

ja4…I answered your question. Feel like returning the favor? Thanks.

1. Do you believe the writer of the Gospel of Mark was inspired by the Holy Spirit? Yes or no?
2. If yes, where in the Bible does it say that the writer of the Gospel of Mark was inspired by the Holy Spirit?
3. Do you believe the writer of the Letter to the Hebrews was inspired by the Holy Spirit?
4. If yes, where in the Bible does it tell us that the writer of the Letter to the Hebrews was inspired by the Holy Spirit?
5. Where in the Bible does it tell us who the writer of the Letter to the Hebrews was?

 

[justasking4]

Lampo;2795466]ja4…I answered your question. Feel like returning the favor? Thanks.

1. Do you believe the writer of the Gospel of Mark was inspired by the Holy Spirit? Yes or no?

If by inspiration you mean that the Spirit of God worked through Mark to write this gospel, then yes.

1. If yes, where in the Bible does it say that the writer of the Gospel of Mark was inspired by the Holy Spirit?

It does not.

1. Do you believe the writer of the Letter to the Hebrews was inspired by the Holy Spirit?

yes

1. If yes, where in the Bible does it tell us that the writer of the Letter to the Hebrews was inspired by the Holy Spirit?

It does not.

1. Where in the Bible does it tell us who the writer of the Letter to the Hebrews was?

It does not.

Question: Do you know what the qualifications were for a book to be part of the canon? How was it determined? What was the criteria for a book to be in the canon?

 

[Lampo]

Question: Do you know what the qualifications were for a book to be part of the canon? How was it determined? What was the criteria for a book to be in the canon?

The writer of the particular book had to be inspired by the Holy Spirit. The Catholic Church determined the canon of Scripture. I think your last question is a repeat of your first unless I’m reading it wrong.

Questions: On who’s authority are you going by and trusting that the author of the Letter to the Hebrews was inspired by the Holy Spirit if it doesn’t explicitly state this in Scripture?

 

[justasking4]

Lampo;2796733]The writer of the particular book had to be inspired by the Holy Spirit. The Catholic Church determined the canon of Scripture. I think your last question is a repeat of your first unless I’m reading it wrong.

There is far more to this than most people think. How did the catholic church determine the canon? How did they know for example if a particular book was inspired or not?

Questions: On who’s authority are you going by and trusting that the author of the Letter to the Hebrews was inspired by the Holy Spirit if it doesn’t explicitly state this in Scripture?

Its not a question of authority but evidence. To whom does the evidence point to and why?

Are you aware that there are some books of the Bible that we really don’t know with certainty who wrote them?

 

[guanophore]

If its true, then why is it so difficult to give some kind of offical list of these Sacred Traditions that the catholic church claims to have?

Why would you need this, ja4?

This is certainly a legitmate request

I think not, ja4. You have already made it clear through hundreds of posts that you don’t believe in the legitimacy of such a source. That being the case, how could your request be legitimate? You have already made up your mind without seeing any “list”.

and one that i would think most catholics would want to see the “substance” of the claim. If a catholic is going to defend catholicism with Sacred Traditions then its imperative to know exactly what these Sacred Traditions are, when they began and how do they relate to the defense of catholicism.

Then you misunderstand Catholicism, ja4. Catholics believe that the teaching of the church is true. That the sacred writings and the sacred traditions parallel one another in source and authority (see 2 Thess 2:15). We know that the substance of these sacred traditions is found in the Church teachings. The Teaching is about a way of life, a way of being in the world, a way of relating to our Creator. They don’t comprise a “list”. If Jesus wanted His Teaching represented in a “list”, He would have made one. Instead, he taught His Apostles everything, then commissioned them to teach it to others.

Thank you for the compliment. However i am most interested in the “lens” that catholics are using. Without some specfics of exactly what it is and its history i don’t see it as being useful.

One wonders why, if you don’t see it as being useful, why you are so interested in it?

How do these supposed oral traditions of the apostles not recorded in the scriptures help you if you don’t know exactly what they were?

I suppose they could not help, if we didn’t know. Fortunately, they are embodied in the Teaching of the Church that Jesus founded.

Do you then think you have a “fuller of understanding” of these oral and Sacred Traditions from the catechism even though you don’t know specifically what they are?

Well, let’s not assume that, because YOU don’t know or accept them, no one does. Catholics who are well catechized know what the Church teaches. If they are spiritually formed in their faith, they know the Sacred Scripture and the Sacred Traditions well. And yes, these will provide a fuller understanding of faith than can be grasped by those, such as yourself, that reject them.

 

[Singinbeauty]

The church has protected all of these things since the day Jesus made Peter the first Pope. The 12 apostles were the first 12 Catholic priests. They got it all from the horse’s mouth.

It sounds like you are saying you need proof to have faith. What a contradiction.

Take your blinders off honey.

Why won’t someone just answer the question?

I have FAITH. I don’t need the proof. BUT the suggestion was posed that not everything Jesus did was in the bible. The verse says He performed many signs that weren’t written down… I am just saying, what important thing - handed down orally - is still taught today since it wasn’t written down.

And I would appreciate you not calling me ‘honey’… Cupcake.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;2797043

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
If its true, then why is it so difficult to give some kind of offical list of these Sacred Traditions that the catholic church claims to have?

guanophore
Why would you need this, ja4?

To study the substance of the claim for its truthfulness. Since your church makes these great claims based on Sacred Traditions then it should be no problem to see what they are and there origins.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
This is certainly a legitmate request

guanophore
I think not, ja4. You have already made it clear through hundreds of posts that you don’t believe in the legitimacy of such a source.

Huh? Without it it makes this discussion most difficult since i don’t see the evidence for the claim. Its like trying to nail jello to the wall.

That being the case, how could your request be legitimate? You have already made up your mind without seeing any “list”.

I’m beginning to think that such a thing really doesn’t exist and is something that is introduced in the discussion that has no real substance. I don’t see how it tells catholics anything.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
and one that i would think most catholics would want to see the “substance” of the claim. If a catholic is going to defend catholicism with Sacred Traditions then its imperative to know exactly what these Sacred Traditions are, when they began and how do they relate to the defense of catholicism.

Then you misunderstand Catholicism, ja4. Catholics believe that the teaching of the church is true. That the sacred writings and the sacred traditions parallel one another in source and authority (see 2 Thess 2:15). We know that the substance of these sacred traditions is found in the Church teachings. The Teaching is about a way of life, a way of being in the world, a way of relating to our Creator. They don’t comprise a “list”. If Jesus wanted His Teaching represented in a “list”, He would have made one. Instead, he taught His Apostles everything, then commissioned them to teach it to others.

i know catholics accept these things as true. However due to the nature of these sacred traditons and the claims made in regard to them, they really don’t support what the apostles taught. Your church goes far beyond what the apostles taught with so many of its doctrines.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Thank you for the compliment. However i am most interested in the “lens” that catholics are using. Without some specfics of exactly what it is and its history i don’t see it as being useful.

guanophore
One wonders why, if you don’t see it as being useful, why you are so interested in it?

I’m interested because the truth matters. If what the catholic church teaches is true, then there must be evidence for it. If you want to claim the sacred traditions support your beliefs then i would think you would want to know the foundation of these traditions i.e. who taught it, when and on what scriptural basis are they using to support the claim. This is the only way to avoid being deceived by false teachers which the scriptures warned would come into the church itself. Sadly i see catholics unwilling or fearful to hold their church accountable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
How do these supposed oral traditions of the apostles not recorded in the scriptures help you if you don’t know exactly what they were?

guanophore
I suppose they could not help, if we didn’t know. Fortunately, they are embodied in the Teaching of the Church that Jesus founded.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Do you then think you have a “fuller of understanding” of these oral and Sacred Traditions from the catechism even though you don’t know specifically what they are?

guanophore
Well, let’s not assume that, because YOU don’t know or accept them, no one does. Catholics who are well catechized know what the Church teaches. If they are spiritually formed in their faith, they know the Sacred Scripture and the Sacred Traditions well. And yes, these will provide a fuller understanding of faith than can be grasped by those, such as yourself, that reject them.

How does not knowing what the specific traditions are, their origins and there grounding in scripture provide you with a fuller understanding?

---

“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” 2 Thess 2:15

 

[cascherman]

Okay Catholics, this thread was made to answer a question. Re: Protestants: Where is the Bible in the Bible?
Why, once again, have we gone on the defensive. Let’s let them answer the original question, because reading over this thread I have not seen an answer.

Where is it stated in the Bible that it is the only authority and it includes everything we need to know? It’s a very simple question and for a believer of sola scriptura it had better have the answer in the Bible or they are spreading the beliefs of men, just like they accuse Catholics of doing.

Again, let me reiterate, in order to hold the belief that the Bible is the only authority, it need to say that fact in the Bible for the argument to hold water. Otherwise it’s just circular reasoning.

The Bible is the only authority (Presupposed Argument) ----> Anything outside of the Bible is unreliable ------> So, a doctrine that is not supported by the Bible is wrong -------> Because the Bible is the only authority ----> Anything outside of the Bible is unreliable ------> So, a doctrine that is not supported by the Bible is wrong -------> Because the Bible is the only authority ----> Anything outside of the Bible is unreliable ------> So, a doctrine that is not supported by the Bible is wrong -------> Because the Bible is the only authority

Somewhere in that reasoning needs to be indisputable fact. And if the Bible, the inspired Word of God, says that it is the only authority, then there you go… FACT.

So, does it?

 

[Tonks40]

Ok, I’ll wait for the answer…

 

[qui_est_ce]

Why won’t someone just answer the question?

I have FAITH. I don’t need the proof. BUT the suggestion was posed that not everything Jesus did was in the bible. The verse says He performed many signs that weren’t written down… I am just saying, what important thing - handed down orally - is still taught today since it wasn’t written down.

And I would appreciate you not calling me ‘honey’… Cupcake.

Apostolic Authority, the Papacy, the Real Presence. Read the early Church Fathers, Augustine, etc. They all believed it. Why don’t you?

 

[qui_est_ce]

:tsktsk:

Okay Catholics, this thread was made to answer a question. Re: Protestants: Where is the Bible in the Bible?
Why, once again, have we gone on the defensive. Let’s let them answer the original question, because reading over this thread I have not seen an answer.
Again, let me reiterate, in order to hold the belief that the Bible is the only authority, it need to say that fact in the Bible for the argument to hold water. Otherwise it’s just circular reasoning.
Somewhere in that reasoning needs to be indisputable fact. And if the Bible, the inspired Word of God, says that it is the only authority, then there you go… FACT.

So, does it?

Oops, I did it again! :yup: We Catholics always let ourselves get derailed.

I am waiting for the answer too.

 

[BrewMax]

Okay Catholics, this thread was made to answer a question. Re: Protestants: Where is the Bible in the Bible?
Why, once again, have we gone on the defensive.

It is because some folks here have have refuted this loaded question pretty well I think. Sola Scriptura? I don’t think this accusation flew as well as hoped. The refutation: Nobody says that Scripture is all that there is. But being as so, how can it be proven that the Marian doctrines and such were handed down and taught by the Apostles? Not anywhere in Scripture can it be found. Where is it? Like one poster said well, “it’s like trying to nail jello to the wall”. I don’t think this went nearly as well as many thought it would. Protestants have made quite a good case. Much of what the Catholic church believes to be sacred Tradition is not parallel with Scripture and in many cases, not even close.