Prove it!

[Leslie_Polley]

Dokimas, I think you would agree that the Holy Spirit spoke through the early church to determine the canon of Scripture.

Catholics just give this a name: Sacred Tradition.

And, we believe that the Holy Spirit did not just speak to his church once, to determine the canon of Scripture, but continues to speak through the Magisterium.

I really think that if you can accept that the HS guided the early church then, infallibly, to determine the canon of Scripture, it’s not such a stretch to believe that the HS could also continue to infallibly guide the church today.

Absolutly the Holy Spirit is the author and the finisher of the Bible The Bible is Fact, not Tradition…Tradition is the passinn down of elements of a culture from generation to generation especially by oral communication…a Fact…Information presented as objectively real, A real occurrence, and event had to prove the facts. Quality of being real. I believe in Fact. Tradition can be inhanced if it just passed down from generation to generation…It can take on a whole new meaning. I believe the Bible is a book of Facts, inspired by the Holy Spirit…Fact or Tradition…? The Word Sacred does not change the word tradition…

 

[izoid]

I have shown that some of your teaching is questionable.​

I see in the Bible God doesn’t like pride. Saying your church is the ONE and is infallible could be because of pride.​

You can’t prove the Catholic Church from the Bible is the original church; the term isn’t even in the Bible.

Which term isn’t in the Bible, Catholic? Neither is trinity, you believe that don’t you?

The Bible is very clear that Christ established a physical Church here on earth. The only Church that existed for the first 1500 years after His resurrection is the Catholic Church. The Bible gives many marks to help identify the true Church, the Catholic Church posses those marks.

I think it is more prideful to think that one can break a 1500 year fellowship because they have a better way of thinking. Individual interpretation is much more prideful than submission to a governing authority.

 

[Leslie_Polley]

No, Sacred Tradition is NOT the Bible. ST is the HS’s voice in the Church. It is the transmission of the Divine Word "orally “by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received - whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit” CCC 76

Here’s a great example of Sacred Tradition at work:

[BIBLEDRB]Acts 20:35.[/BIBLEDRB]

Paul gives a teaching of Christ–never mentioned in the Gospel– which has been clearly handed down orally. There is no recording at all of Jesus ever saying “it is better to give than receive”, but that “tradition” or teaching of Christ was obviously preserved ORALLY, so that Paul heard it. It was not written down anywhere that Jesus said it…yet we know he did. That’s Sacred Tradition.

Also, I’m really eager to talk to you about your thoughts on this question I asked earlier:
Post #375

Who is Douay Rheims, and what does he have to do with Paul or the Book of Acts.

 

[Dokimas]

Which term isn’t in the Bible, Catholic? Neither is trinity, you believe that don’t you?

The Bible is very clear that Christ established a physical Church here on earth. The only Church that existed for the first 1500 years after His resurrection is the Catholic Church. The Bible gives many marks to help identify the true Church, the Catholic Church posses those marks.

I think it is more prideful to think that one can break a 1500 year fellowship because they have a better way of thinking. Individual interpretation is much more prideful than submission to a governing authority.

Jesus did establish His church. The CC started about 300AD.

 

[Yellow_Belle]

Who is Douay Rheims, and what does he have to do with Paul or the Book of Acts.

Your bio says you’re a former Catholic; yet you don’t know what the Douay Rheims is???

 

[onenow1]

Which term isn’t in the Bible, Catholic? Neither is trinity, you believe that don’t you?

The Bible is very clear that Christ established a physical Church here on earth. The only Church that existed for the first 1500 years after His resurrection is the Catholic Church. The Bible gives many marks to help identify the true Church, the Catholic Church posses those marks.

I think it is more prideful to think that one can break a 1500 year fellowship because they have a better way of thinking. Individual interpretation is much more prideful than submission to a governing authority.

Absolutely.:thumbsup:It could’nt be more clear.

I would go further and say this>Paul admonishes those who refuse to accept the authority given to the Church and warns what will happen to them if they refuse in Rom 13:1-2, “Let everyone be subject to the higher authorities, for THERE EXISTS NO AUTHORITY EXCEPT FROM GOD, AND THOSE WHO EXIST HAVE BEEN APPOINTED BY GOD. Therefore HE WHO RESISTS THE AUTHORITY RESISTS THE ORDINANCE OF GOD; AND THEY THAT RESIST BRING ON THEMSELVES CONDEMNATION.”

God Bless
onenow1:thumbsup:

 

[Jars_of_Clay_1]

As for the use of the word “until” to describe Mary’s and Joseph’s supposed consummation…

Does it say in Scripture that Joseph had sexual relations with Mary after the baby was born? I certainly could not find it anywhere in my Scriptural readings! Just that they had no relations UNTIL Jesus’ birth.

The word “until” does not indicate anything that occurred subsequently.

Here’s some examples of other verses which use the word “until” but don’t indicate what occurred afterwards…

In 2 Samuel 6:23, we read that Michal, the daughter of Saul, had no child “until” the day of her death. (We can presume that she didn’t have children afterwards, either. )

[BIBLEDRB]Hebrews 1:13 [/BIBLEDRB]and [BIBLEDRB]1 Timothy 4:13[/BIBLEDRB] are similar examples

Hi there:

I find the thoughts in this thread about Mary and Joseph and whether or not Jesus had brothers very interesting and thought provoking.

When I followed the Catholic religion, I never questioned Mary’s virginity, but when I became Protestant I did question her virginity after marriage. Mostly because it’s hard to believe that Mary and Joseph could be married and never have sex throughout the time they were married.

Does anyone know if there is a reference in the bible stating they remained celibate in their marriage? (I’m not trying to trick anyone with this question…I just don’t know.)

If this has been addressed in this thread, I’m sorry for asking again, I must have overlooked it. If you provide me to the response number - I’ll read it instead of readdressing it here.

PR, I asked this in your posting since you have the opinion (I think by reading above) that Mary and Joseph didn’t have sex during their marriage so I was wondering if there is any bible reference to support their marriage was celibate.

Thanks!

 

[izoid]

Jesus did establish His church. The CC started about 300AD.

Can you provide some historical references that support that view?

 

[rovimax]

We need SAINTS to embody the Church and Her teachings. Like a Mother Theresa. Apologists sometimes become antagonists. Live our faith, evangelization through good example will yield results. Arguing Biblical reference did not bear fruit.

My in laws were SDA’s, they strongly believed Catholics were dammed and they tried hard to convince me with Biblical references and I did the same. I showed them good behavior and living a christian life and the onslaught of Biblical attacks stopped. We live in harmony and I believe I’m slowly convincing some of them the error in their teachings.

 

[fbl9]

He knows my view and holds most of his self!

if your priest was in my parish i would be reporting him to the bishop and if i got no stisfaction i would continue higher till this man was corrected.

 

[fbl9]

I think we can all agree that God knew what He was doing when made the human body, and I think that He knew that the act of making love between and man and a woman would be pleasueable. And I think He knew that most people, perhaps not you, but most people love it.

you have no clue as to whether i enjoy marital relations or not.

You are stretching so far to prove that a condom on a man is against Gods law you can wrap it around you twice and still scratch your back.

i am not stretching anything,you are the one doing the acrobatic moves to try justify the sinfulness of using birth control.

Horses are mated with a donkey to have a mule.

what does that have to do with the quote:nothing ,more empty words.

Your right mules cannot have offspring…thank you for your biology lesson.

what you are saying a catholic is right…wow the wonders never cease around you

As for me, a healthy sex life with your husband or wife is a wonderful thing, and God says not to withhold unless you both agree, and that is why He made it pleasureable…

huh that makes no sense at all,

 

[guanophore]

He has said this to me and also asked ie I had a dementia problem etc. and etc.

Indeed I am still grasping at straws trying to understand your unreasonable and recalcitrant stance. There are certainly many reasons why an intelligent persons would make very poor judgements. Some of them are spiritual, not physical.

I believe in the Bible period I don’t neeed Irenaeus to tell me how to worship.

No, none of us need Irenaeus to tell us how to worship. However, he can tell us how the early church worshipped and believed. When we study the writings of the early fathers, we can see that the Church was Catholic.

We can also see that “I believe in the Bible, period” was not part of the Apostolic Teachings.

 

[guanophore]

Sacred Tradition is the Word of God according to who, the CC? If so, that’s like the Mormons saying the Book of Mormon is the Word of God or me saying I’m brilliant, tall, dark and handsome (well one out of 4 ain’t bad - and even that’s a little gray).

I can see your point, but one must take into account that this Apostolic Teaching is still held on all communities founded by the Apostles including those that have no love lost on the Catholic church. If it is a “Catholic” phenomenon only, they why would those who are in schism with the Catholic Church hold it?

Why do you not trust God to preserve His word? Why do you think He can only do it if men write it on parchment for Him?

 

[PRmerger]

-You can’t prove the Catholic Church from the Bible is the original church;[SIGN] the term isn’t even in the Bible[/SIGN].

That is quite a peculiar argument in light of the upcoming season. For the term “Christmas” is[SIGN1] not even in the Bible.[/SIGN1]

Yet, I presume, you celebrate Christmas at your church?

You see how that argument “It’s not in the Bible” turns around and bites you in the bottom?

If you criticize the CC for having beliefs not in Scripture, then you cannot have any yourself.

And that’s simply impossible for a Christian to do.

In fact, I’ve never met a Christian–*ever–*who did not have extra-biblical beliefs.

And, the term “Christmas” is, it seems, one of them. The term is [SIGN]not even in the Bible![/SIGN]

 

[guanophore]

Are you saying Sacred Tradition is the Bible (39 books of the OT and 27 books of the NT)?

No, according to the Apostles, the Septuagint was the correct collection used by Christ.

This Truth, revealed by God, and preserved in the Church, is one of the Sacred Tradtiion.

• Or are you including other writings and declarations of the CC leaders over the years?

Sacred Tradition (the Word of God preserved in the Church) comes in many forms. It is found in prayers, liturgy, art, and writings.

• I agree the Holy Spirit was involved in the canon of Scripture. He used sinners (fallible men). The outcome of what He did is infallible. Not everything we do is infallible, no matter if the Holy Spirit uses us. Paul had to correct Peter. Paul made a mistake with John Mark.

Yes, this is a good definition of infallibility. The gift of infallibility is necessary because God has chosen to use fallible persons to create the perfect. You are right that the gift applies to the result, not the person Infallible does not equate to impeccable.

 

[Rv_Cain_Spencer]

This should be intersting to read, though I will refrain from getting involved if I can.

 

[guanophore]

My dear Carmelian…FYI I was repremanded for that, and that was fine…I did however try to change the word moron…before I was repremanded. I did not call “people” a moron, just one person. Please get things straight. I will not do that again. Now God has forgiven me, I did my “penence” and YOU my dearest sweet judgemental person still bring it up. Well thats fine…I forgive you

Actually, he was just pointing out that you criticizing other members for immature expressions might be the least bit hypocritical, given your track record.

 

[guanophore]

Heck, if you people (as you refer) put it together, ( the Bible), then why don’t you pay attention to what it says.

The fact that we understand what is written differently does not mean we don’t “pay attention”. Catholics interpret the scriptures according to the teachings of the Apostles preserved in the Church. Protestants interpret it based upon the ideas of theReformers after they separated from the Apostolic Succession during the Reformation. There is no way for them to have access to the Sacred Tradition, being separated from it for 500 years.

You forgot to put the stuff in about praying to Mary or the Saints, is that why you put it in the Catechizm instead, because it sure isn’t in the Bible.

the Bible was never intented to be a complete compendium of the faith. The Apostles commanded us to preserve the Teachings that were in writing, and by word of mouth. there are many aspects of the faith that are not included in the Scriptures. The list of books that belong in the Bible not the least.

And that part about Jesus being our intersesor.....you don't use that either and that is in the Bible , but you should know that, you put it together.

I don’t understand what you are saying here. There is nothing in the NT that is not Catholic, and does not reflect the catholic faith. If it is there, it is because the Catholic Church believes and teaches it.

it sound pompus

I see your point. If it were not the Truth, it would be exceedingly arrogant to claim it.

 

[PRmerger]

Originally Posted by Leslie Polley
My dear Carmelian…FYI I was repremanded for that, and that was fine…I did however try to change the word moron…before I was repremanded. I did not call “people” a moron, just one person. Please get things straight. I will not do that again. Now God has forgiven me,** I did my “penence”**

Interesting that in this Christian systemology that “penance” does not include an apology to the “just one person”. Perhaps this "just one person’ would then never bring it up again.

Perhaps another suitable penance would be to shower this “just one person” with kind and loving posts.

and YOU my dearest sweet judgemental person still bring it up.

Isn’t *that *judging?

I always find it odd that a person calls someone “judgmental”, yet claims the right to be judgmental herself.

Well, not odd, just hypocritical, I guess.

 

[PRmerger]

PR, I asked this in your posting since you have the opinion (I think by reading above) that Mary and Joseph didn’t have sex during their marriage so I was wondering if there is any bible reference to support their marriage was celibate.

Thanks!

One verse is “how can this be since I know not man?” Luke 1:34.

Imagine that you’re newly married (i.e. betrothed) and an angel appears to you and tells you “You will conceive a child”.

If you plan to have a normal marriage you would respond: “Wow! I can’t wait!” Not, “How can this be since I know not man?”

That simple question betrays her plan for celibacy as a consecrated virgin.

Otherwise, her question makes no sense if she were going to have marital relations with Joseph, right?