Protestants: Where is the Bible in the Bible?

[qui_est_ce]

Where have i rejected it? If anything, we are just starting to discuss these Traditions and the like. I get the impression that most catholics here really don’t understand them themselves.

Why did you completely ignore my post? Why did you completely ignore all the posts that said, Sunday, Trinity, etc.?Just so you could argue with Guano? Are you really interested or are you trying to prove that Catholic Christians are not really Christians? It sounds to me like YOU are the infallible person here, who picks and chooses what verses to take literally, and which ones to take Spiritually (John 6:53-61). You already admitted that “Bible” is not found in the Bible. That answered the post. Start a new one about Are Catholic Christians teaching the words of Men, not of God?

 

[qui_est_ce]

Start a new one about Are Catholic Christians teaching the words of Men, not of God? And stop derailing the thread, which is NOT about Cahtolic Christian Tradition.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=183024&highlight=apostolic+tradition

Thank you.

 

[justasking4]

[qui est ce;2810803]Why did you completely ignore my post? Why did you completely ignore all the posts that said, Sunday, Trinity, etc.?Just so you could argue with Guano?

Can you cut and paste where i have completely rejected all Traditions? Maybe i missed it with so much going on here on these formumns.

Are you really interested or are you trying to prove that Catholic Christians are not really Christians?

Never said that.

It sounds to me like YOU are the infallible person here, who picks and chooses what verses to take literally, and which ones to take Spiritually (John 6:53-61).

Not infallible but reading the scriptures carefully. Don’t you do this?

You already admitted that “Bible” is not found in the Bible. That answered the post. Start a new one about Are Catholic Christians teaching the words of Men, not of God?

 

[qui_est_ce]

Can you cut and paste where i have completely rejected all Traditions? Maybe i missed it with so much going on here on these formumns.

Tradition is in writing, as in Practices and Doctrine.

As Catholic Christians we are required to attend mass on SUNDAYS (we can go more often, I go daily). This Tradition of Sundays is not found in the Bible

As Catholic Christians we believe in the Real Presence of the Eucharist. Although Transubstantiation was not spelled out as doctrin until Council of Trent . This is because Reformers denied the real presence (Except for Martin Luther). John 6:53-61 says we must feed on His flesh, but early Christians showed us HOW. All the early Christians who were eyewitnesses to the Apostles believed in the Eucharist. In the 8th Century, a Basilian monk had doubts about the Real Presence. Whether or not you believe in the miracle that happened, it goes to that’s what everybody believed until the Reformation.

The Doctrine of the Trinity. First written account found in 180 by Theophilus. But was generally practiced and believed until Arian heresy denied Trinity. JW’s to this day deny it.

The Bible - NT. Oral Tradition, various letters and Proto Gospels floating around until compiled by St. Jerome approx 385 AD after the Catholic Christian Church held several councils inspired by the HS to determine which books were actually Inspired. The Pope then asked St Jerome to translate it into the common language of the day, Latin, so people could read it.
"qui est ce:

Are you really interested or are you trying to prove that Catholic Christians are not really Christians?

Never said that.

Then why do you speak past posts and then come came and say you never saw where Tradition was given you?

Not infallible but reading the scriptures carefully. Don’t you do this?

Actually, you made yourself the judge of what to believe and what to reject, and you accuse Catholic Christians of following manmade traditions, which are totally not manmade, but based on the teachings of Christ as per his Apostles. That’s making yourself infallible.

 

[MariaG]

I suspect that this is an area of discussion you don’t want to engage in. If i were a catholic i wouldn’t either if i believed my church could not err in matters of faith and morals. But nevertheless it is important to see what these Traditions are, what is there origin and when did they begin. If you are going to defend the catholic church you going to have to defend its Sacred Traditions also. Scripture and Tradition go hand in hand in the catholic church.

Yes it is important. So why do you reject the information at every turn even when provided with Scripture and historical writings written before 300 AD about these Sacred Traditions?

Infant baptism is a very well documented one from scripture and Tradition. Or am I wrong? You believe in infant baptism?

 

[qui_est_ce]

Yes it is important. So why do you reject the information at every turn even when provided with Scripture and historical writings written before 300 AD about these Sacred Traditions?

Infant baptism is a very well documented one from scripture and Tradition. Or am I wrong? You believe in infant baptism?

Thank you MariaG. J4 is using the typical “change the topic” and Catholics fall for it. He already answered that “the Bible is not in the Bible” (he admitted it is not) But the thread will continue until it hits 1,000 post, because we Catholic Christians keep allowing non CC’s to derail us with prepackaged attacks.

Why? Because Catholic Christians assume that a poster is seeking truth, and we want to help. But in actuality, some, such as j4, brew, singin, etc. do not engage in honest discussion, that is the free exchange of ideas and their origins. I hate to admit this, because so many, such as Bengal, Contarini and others have engaged in honest discussion. We Catholic Christians are so naive. And we need to remain so.

 

[agangbern]

Hello,

The three modes of revelation are equal - none have a primacy over the other. There is much revelation that cannot be deduced only by Scripture.

As for discarding all that cannot be found in Scriptures or easily deduced from them. The Trinity is a doctrine that cannot be found in Scripture. And even starting with the idea of the Trinity and trying to look and see if it is in Scriptures, some will see it and some won’t. So by that standard the Trinity would have to be discarded.

In other words, there has to be an authority who shall decide which is worth to be discarded and which is not. The decision cannot just be left to individual discretion. The Bible itself says in 1Tim 3:15 that the Church is the pillar and mainstay of the truth.

Sola Scriptura itself is not biblical.

 

[qui_est_ce]

In other words, there has to be an authority who shall decide which is worth to be discarded and which is not. The decision cannot just be left to individual discretion. The Bible itself says in 1Tim 3:15 that the Church is the pillar and mainstay of the truth.

Sola Scriptura itself is not biblical.

Go on…

 

[justasking4]

In other words, there has to be an authority who shall decide which is worth to be discarded and which is not. The decision cannot just be left to individual discretion. The Bible itself says in 1Tim 3:15 that the Church is the pillar and mainstay of the truth.

Sola Scriptura itself is not biblical.

What is your defintion of Sola Scriptura?

 

[justasking4]

Quote:
Originally Posted by qui est ce
Are you really interested or are you trying to prove that Catholic Christians are not really Christians?

 

[agangbern]

What is your defintion of Sola Scriptura?

The same as your definition.

 

[guanophore]

To be honest, some Tradition is in writing, as in Practices and Doctrine.

As Catholic Christians we are required to attend mass on SUNDAYS (we can go more often, I go daily). This Tradition of Sundays is not found in the Bible

I disagree. Just like all the Doctrine, they are found at least in seed form (implicit):

9 Now when he rose early on the first day of the week" Mark 16:9

7 On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them" Acts 20:7

2 On the first day of every week" 1 Cor 16:1-2

19 On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being shut where the disciples were…"

It is clear that the disciples honored Resurrection Sunday. We also know that they continued to attend synagogue until they were ejected as a sect.John 20:19

John 6:53-61 says we must feed on His flesh, but early Christians showed us HOW. All the early Christians who were eyewitnesses to the Apostles believed in the Eucharist. In the 8th Century, a Basilian monk had doubts about the Real Presence. Whether or not you believe in the miracle that happened, it goes to that’s what everybody believed until the Reformation.

I don’t think this is true either. There have been heretics from much earlier than that!
Ignatius of Antioch

Ignatius of Antioch

“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

As you can see, those who deny the Real Presence are still perishing in their disputes.

Thanks for your post!

 

[qui_est_ce]

i don’t know about you but its easy to lose track of stuff when i’ve been discussing things for days. There is a lot of stuff out here.

 

[guanophore]

Where have i rejected it? If anything, we are just starting to discuss these Traditions and the like. I get the impression that most catholics here really don’t understand them themselves.

It is a sad truth that many Catholics are poorly catechized. I don’t think you will find many of that kind here, though.

You have rejected the Apostolic Authority appointed by Christ. You have rejected the doctrines that have been passed down to us. You are not “just starting to discuss”. On the contrary, you have been denying the Sacred Traditions since you joined this board. If you don’t remember, put your name into the search and read what you wrote. I did.

 

[qui_est_ce]

I disagree. Just like all the Doctrine, they are found at least in seed form (implicit):

9 Now when he rose early on the first day of the week" Mark 16:9

7 On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them" Acts 20:7

2 On the first day of every week" 1 Cor 16:1-2

19 On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being shut where the disciples were…"

It is clear that the disciples honored Resurrection Sunday. We also know that they continued to attend synagogue until they were ejected as a sect.John 20:19

I don’t think this is true either. There have been heretics from much earlier than that!
Ignatius of Antioch

Ignatius of Antioch

“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

As you can see, those who deny the Real Presence are still perishing in their disputes.

Thanks for your post!

Okay, I agree they are explicit, but not to J4.

Love ya Guano, keep it up. You are in my prayers!:angel1:

 

[guanophore]

I suspect that this is an area of discussion you don’t want to engage in. If i were a catholic i wouldn’t either if i believed my church could not err in matters of faith and morals.

That just does not make any logical sense, ja4. Knowing that the Church does not err is the ONLY thing that makes me willing to discuss these things at all! Furthermore, my question to you was, why do YOU want to discuss it, since you have already rejected the very notion. Why waste your time?

But nevertheless it is important to see what these Traditions are, what is there origin and when did they begin. If you are going to defend the catholic church you going to have to defend its Sacred Traditions also. Scripture and Tradition go hand in hand in the catholic church.

My question is, why is it importatnt to YOU, to know what these Traditions are? You have already stated they are “speculations of men” and have no validity, since you do not see them in your bible.

However, I agree that Scripture and Tradition are two equal streams of Divine Revelation. This is not just “Catholic” though, as the Orthodox have the same belief.

I’m aware of that source also. Thanks anyway.

You asked for a Source for the Apostolic Traditions. You were pointed to the CCC. You respond “Thanks anyway”. What is that?

You want to “discuss” these beliefs, but you don’t want to read them? What is the point of that?

I think you are being disingenuous. I think you have already made up your mind. There is nothing to discuss!

 

[brother_dan_mac]

It is a sad truth that many Catholics are poorly catechized. I don’t think you will find many of that kind here, though.

You have rejected the Apostolic Authority appointed by Christ. You have rejected the doctrines that have been passed down to us. You are not “just starting to discuss”. On the contrary, you have been denying the Sacred Traditions since you joined this board. If you don’t remember, put your name into the search and read what you wrote. I did.

May I suggest “justasking4it” and “reverend brewbasket” and anyone else that has LEGITIMATE questions on OUR FAITH please go to “ask an apologist” thread, and stop picking on the ones that are merely WELL informed!! THANK YOU!!!

 

[guanophore]

One of the problems with the claims of this “Sacred Oral Tradition” claims is that you have no evidence for it outside the scriptures or some written documentation of it.

This is not the case, ja4. You do not accept the evidence, but that does not mean the evidence is not there. The Divine Liturgy contains the same form it did in the NT. It is a problem only for those who have rejected the Apostolic Authority appointed by Jesus to lead His Church.

Since its not in the written scriptures then it does not exist since that is all we have of the apostles writings.

This is an example of what I pointed out to you on another thread. You admit that things happened that are not recorded, and that the Bible does not claim to be the Sole Authority, yet you continue to make comments like this? The fact is, ja4, that apostolic teaching does indeed exist outside of the NT. The fact that you reject it does not make it go away for anyone but yourself.

It won’t do to claim that there is some kind of “Sacred Oral Tradition” from them since there is no evidence of such a thing.

No evidence that suffices for you, since you have limited yourself to the NT.

To show me i’m wrong about this " Sacred Oral Tradition" you going to need to produce some written documention from the 1st century itself.

I really have no investment in pointing out the faults and shortcomings of others. I have an interest in speaking the truth in love, which I have tried to do with you. I think it is not my job to show others their are “wrong”. That can only be the job of the HS, whose job it is to convict believers of error. What has be puzzled is why do you care? Why do you feel that you need to be “proved wrong”? You already believe you are not wrong. You have lived your life this long without knowing the other half of Divine Revelation. You say your bible is sufficient…

I probably should not have written under this topic since it doesn’t deal with it directly but indirectly. To bad we can’t change the topic to the Bible and Tradition.

We can, or you can start a new one. You already admitted that the Bible does not have the contents of the Bible, so I think the thread is completed.

 

[MariaG]

What is your defintion of Sola Scriptura?

MY definition of scripture alone was just that, scripture alone. Only Scripture is God’s inspired word and therefore only Scripture should be studied. The only kind of “tradition” that I thought there was were “traditions of men”. Boy was I surprised by 2Thes 2:15 as well as things like the Trinity and the Apostles Creed. Things like the Trinity may be “clear” in scripture to me, but clearly not all agree on even that basic.

I realized the fallacy of this when 3 very good, Godly and spirit filled pastors all had different interpretations of that inspired word, completely contradicting each other, yet all SEEMED to have a valid argument. All pulled out the “well in the Greek” and stuff like that. Some have told me that this would be considered SolO Scriptura.

Sacramental Protestants have a very different definition. It would be more like scripture is the final authority if in doubt. They admit that Tradition has in fact played a part in Christian Doctrine. Things like the Trinity and infant baptism being part of them the oral Tradtion. I still however believe that you run into the same problem. Placing scripture as the “final authority” but this really isn’t possible. Scripture doesn’t interpret itself and can be hard to understand, scripture tells us this. Well meaning people can be misled. Scripture also tells us where to look for understanding, the Church.

There may be other defintions that come somewhere in the middle:shrug:

God Bless,
Maria

 

[MariaG]

No evidence that suffices for you, since you have limited yourself to the NT.

I have to say, I commend JA4 for this though. I know I did, but was still led to the truth.

It can never be bad to check things against scripture. Paul commended some for doing this very thing (checking against OT), but they were able to see that even thought they did not understand scripture to mean that, truth was being newly revealed to them and accepted it, and Christ.

The thing that JA4 needs to remember is that while scripture is inspired, the interpretation he may have isn’t. Scripture warns that there will be those who come along teaching falsely. In many minds, they have cast the Catholic Church in that role, (the Catholic Church added to scripture etc,), when historically, that is exactly just the opposite. But this is a huge hurdle to wrap your brain around, and is exactly opposite of all that you have learned from men that you KNOW are spirit filled.

God Bless,
Maria