Protestants: Where is the Bible in the Bible?

[BrewMax]

Well, he couldn’t be devout Orthodox if he disagrees with with the teachings of the Orthodox Church of Montalban (who Manny was quoting). It’s possible the vision was from the Devil. Anyway, it’s private revelation, and it has never been accepted by either Church as valid. So there is no credibility here to this vision.

Is it correct to say “Orthodox Catholic?”

your assumptions are ridiculous.

 

[Ad_Deum]

i don’t get the question, is there any other authority aside from the Bible? Isn’t not the magisterium of the Catholic Church came also from the Bible, based from the Bible, and got their authority from the Bible. The Bible is the only sole authority of truth, and other than that is man made.

Peace

 

[St_Violet]

i don’t get the question, is there any other authority aside from the Bible? Isn’t not the magisterium of the Catholic Church came also from the Bible, based from the Bible, and got their authority from the Bible. The Bible is the only sole authority of truth, and other than that is man made.

Peace

Actually, like it was stated. The Church came first before the Bible. And you should also keep in mind that tradition (teachings) was used inorder to help select which books would be in the canon.

 

[byoby]

Actually, like it was stated. The Church came first before the Bible. And you should also keep in mind that tradition (teachings) was used inorder to help select which books would be in the canon.

The church may have started before the Bible as we know it today, but not before the old testament scriptures which were faithfully adhered to and with authority quoted by the new testament writers and Jesus himself to justify and proove doctrines and to show fullfillment of prophecy.

 

[St_Violet]

The church may have started before the Bible as we know it today, but not before the old testament scriptures which were faithfully adhered to and with authority quoted by the new testament writers and Jesus himself to justify and proove doctrines and to show fullfillment of prophecy.

yup they relied on tradition.

 

[BrewMax]

The church may have started before the Bible as we know it today, but not before the old testament scriptures which were faithfully adhered to and with authority quoted by the new testament writers and Jesus himself to justify and proove doctrines and to show fullfillment of prophecy.

that’s right.

 

[BrewMax]

yup they relied on tradition.

So that is your argument for elevating non-Scriptural traditions and the magisterium of the Catholic church to thesame level (and actually beyond) the authority of Scripture?

 

[guanophore]

So that is your argument for elevating non-Scriptural traditions and the magisterium of the Catholic church to thesame level (and actually beyond) the authority of Scripture?

1. 
   *]No arguement is needed
   *]There are no Sacred Traditions that are non-Scriptural
   *]Jesus appointed the Apostles and built His church upon them. No 'elevating" has been done beyond that which Jesus established.

 

[BrewMax]

1. 
   *]No arguement is needed
   *]There are no Sacred Traditions that are non-Scriptural
   *]Jesus appointed the Apostles and built His church upon them. No 'elevating" has been done beyond that which Jesus established.

1. 
   Jesus established his church upon himself (Petros not Petras). Why do you think that he would have established his church upon imperfect people who are subjective to sin? That doesn’t make any kind of sense and it is not what Scripture says. I know this blows your whole premise for Peter being your first pope, I’m sorry.

 

[Ad_Deum]

Actually, like it was stated. The Church came first before the Bible. And you should also keep in mind that tradition (teachings) was used inorder to help select which books would be in the canon.

Thank You.

Peace

 

[guanophore]

Jesus established his church upon himself (Petros not Petras).

Of course He founded it! He is the cornerstone! He deigned to share His rockyness with Peter, and the other Apostles. The Father revealed the truth to Peter, and it is God’s revelation and God’s grace that enabled him to succeed. Jesus prayed for Peter, that he would not fail.

Eph 2:20-22
20 built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, 21 in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; 22 in whom you also are built into it for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.

It is God’s word that calls the temple Holy, a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.

Why do you think that he would have established his church upon imperfect people who are subjective to sin?

You know, God’s ways are far above our ways, and I cannot begin to comprehend why He does some of the things He does. He chose imperfect people so that He could glorify Himself. Really this belongs on another thread.

That doesn’t make any kind of sense and it is not what Scripture says. I know this blows your whole premise for Peter being your first pope, I’m sorry.

Fortunately, my belief about Peter being the first Pope is not contingent upon his impeccability!

 

[Mannyfit75]

I personally know a devout Orthodox Christian who experienced a vision or a glimpse if you will that would disagree with you vehimately.

Oh what matters? The Orthodox believe the Church is visible. Not just invisible. You on the other hand, believe in the invisible Church… Oh please… I know Orthodox do disagree on many theological issues. At least they revere the Mother of God more than Protestants… For that they earn my respect…

 

[Mannyfit75]

BrewMax:

Jesus established his church upon himself (Petros not Petras)

The Scripture doesn’t say that. He build his Church upon Peter.

Let us look at the Matthew 16:13-20 shall we?

**Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Phililippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do men say that the Son of man is?” And they answered, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” He said to them, **“But who do you say that I AM?” **Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered him,

“Blessed are you, Simon Bar Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loose in heaven.” Then he strictly charged his disciple to tell no one that he was the Christ.**

Well, we clear read in the Bible that Jesus build his Church upon Peter.

We don’t see Jesus building the Church upon himself. If it were, the passage in Matthew would say this.

"And I tell you, you are Peter, and upon me (Jesus) will build my church." (Protestant Version).

Well, I don’t know what Bible translation you have. But My Bible says this:

“Blessed are you, Simon Bar Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loose in heaven.”

Who is Jesus address here? Peter. He is not addressing himself. BrewMax’s Biblical intepretation falls apart like a house build on strew. The rains came and it collapses.

 

[byoby]

yup they relied on tradition.

They did rely on the traditions that were taught by Jesus and the Apostles now recorded for us in the Bible.

 

[byoby]

The Scripture doesn’t say that. He build his Church upon Peter.

Let us look at the Matthew 16:13-20 shall we?

Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Phililippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do men say that the Son of man is?” And they answered, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” He said to them, **“But who do you say that I AM?” **Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered him,

“Blessed are you, Simon Bar Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loose in heaven.” Then he strictly charged his disciple to tell no one that he was the Christ.

Well, we clear read in the Bible that Jesus build his Church upon Peter.

We don’t see Jesus building the Church upon himself. If it were, the passage in Matthew would say this.

"And I tell you, you are Peter, and upon me (Jesus) will build my church." (Protestant Version).

Well, I don’t know what Bible translation you have. But My Bible says this:

“Blessed are you, Simon Bar Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loose in heaven.”

Who is Jesus address here? Peter. He is not addressing himself. BrewMax’s Biblical intepretation falls apart like a house build on strew. The rains came and it collapses.

Jesus is the cornerstone, the living stone, the rock, the foundation for the Church. All references to the rock in Scripture are pointing to Christ. It was Peter’s statement of faith that made him and us like living stones which are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. Read 1 Peter Chapter 2 verse 4-12 to gain perspective on what Peter thought about this issue.

 

[byoby]

You can also read the following:

1 Cor 10:4
psalm 18:2, 40:2, 42:9
Mathew 7:24
Romans 9:33
Isa 8:14

 

[BrewMax]

Oh what matters? The Orthodox believe the Church is visible. Not just invisible. You on the other hand, believe in the invisible Church… Oh please… I know Orthodox do disagree on many theological issues. At least they revere the Mother of God more than Protestants… For that they earn my respect…

So then for you it’s all about Mary being held in the highest regard.

 

[guanophore]

So then for you it’s all about Mary being held in the highest regard.

It is a reflection of one’s love and devotion to Jesus. No one can say they Love Jesus and be disrespectful to His mother. I cannot believe that, when she travelled with the Apostles and met with them for prayer, they failed to treat her with reverence.

 

[BrewMax]

It is a reflection of one’s love and devotion to Jesus. No one can say they Love Jesus and be disrespectful to His mother. I cannot believe that, when she travelled with the Apostles and met with them for prayer, they failed to treat her with reverence.

This is a real twisting of reality here. Nobody is disrespecting Mary. I have yet to hear a Protestant come here and outright disrespect Mary. They may not pray to her, they may not refer to her as queen of Heaven and they may not set aside particular devotion time to her, but I have yet to hear someone come on here and say that she was not worthy to be chosen by God to be the earthly mother of Jesus.

 

[guanophore]

This is a real twisting of reality here. Nobody is disrespecting Mary. I have yet to hear a Protestant come here and outright disrespect Mary. They may not pray to her, they may not refer to her as queen of Heaven and they may not set aside particular devotion time to her, but I have yet to hear someone come on here and say that she was not worthy to be chosen by God to be the earthly mother of Jesus.

Here is a quote from another thread:

Acts 4:12. There is only one “NAME” given to us. Mary’s words were true that from that time on all generations would call her “blessed.” But nowhere does she state that all, or any, who call on her “name” will be blessed. Once you elevate her to “name” status within the faith, you’ve transformed her into deity.Matt. 12:21 “And in His name the Gentiles will hope.”

To me, it seems like the poster is saying that we should not even call her by NAME, or say that her name is blessed. She is just some nameless virgin that happened to be alive at the time God decided it was time for the incarnation?

It seems like a way of depersonalizing her entirely.