D
Duane1966
Guest
I have had no problem following it. I am sure you are right about the convincing.
- Status
T
tstor
Guest
Yes, I now have a fuller understanding of how Catholics view this. I just got done watching the James White and Gerry Matatics debate on sola scriptura where Matatics really clarified things for me.
Then what part is he speaking of?
I was using this verse to show John continuing the teachings found in the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures, which I had previously quoted.
I agree that the Pharisees were in the wrong. However, you are ignoring what they said in verse 2:
“Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!”
Who do you suppose these “elders” were?
T
tstor
Guest
No problem
T
tstor
Guest
Well, you go on to quote my answer to your very question:
“I used to find the trinity to be a rather poorly supported doctrine, but it was primarily because many Trinitarians misrepresented it. I had debated the doctrine of the trinity with many people and none of them presented it as well as James White did in his publication The Forgotten Trinity.”
Where is the word “omniscient” in the Bible? I can choose to not use post-Biblical language, but that just seems unnecessary.
I have never claimed that my rejection means something does not exist. I reject the teachings of the Qur’an, but they are very real. Millions of Muslims around the world adhere to the teachings. I believe you meant to say that my rejection does not make them false. That is also true and I have never denied it.
Now, as a former Unitarian, I am well aware of the non-trinitarian proof texts. You can read my rather lengthy debate on the trinity here:
debate.org/debates/The-God-of-the-Bible-is-not-triune-in-nature./1/
You are right to say that one thing may be clear to you, but not to me. However, some things are very clear in scripture, are they not? For example, only those with a personal agenda cannot see homosexuality as a sin. Scripture is clear.
Now, I will quote what I have said to another user on this thread regarding Mary:
“While I do grasp how Catholics have come to the conclusion, I also see why others do not, as it is not the clearest testimony in the Bible.”
It is not clear to me, because I have never been introduced to it. The more one hears it, the clearer it becomes, no?
It is implied
I very clearly said that I am a former Unitarian.
Such as?
Are you suggesting that Scripture does not include the Greek Scriptures? You are right in saying that the canon was not there at that time, but are you suggesting Paul did not know he would write down Scripture?
T
tstor
Guest
Surely you cannot tell me those who adhere to sola scriptura neglect discussion of the church fathers. Many protestant scholars have written on this very topic. I have always found it rather unnecessary, as the church fathers were fallible men. Sure, it is nice to see points of agreement, but I have never saw it as a point of concern for disagreement. Though, for the purpose of your request, allow me to provide a quote mine:
Where do you see in the Bible that these oral statements were “god-breathed”? We know that Scripture was, but what of oral statements?
I was using it to complement the former teachings shown in the Hebrew Scriptures and Greek Scriptures I had previously quoted.
This verse, along with the previously quoted, ties apostleship to the witnessing of Christ.
This is what I mean by an argument from silence
As well, I have already addressed the verse you quoted from Paul.Scriptures were written “so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.” They were written “for our instruction, so that through perseverance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.” They were written “so that you may know that you have eternal life.” So why do we need anything outside of Scripture?
I will respond to the last two parts tomorrow, as it is rather late right now.
D
Darryl_B
Guest
A barrage of Scripture, as if it is the first time in my life I have read it, congratulations on finding the Bible, who will interpret it for me. Philip
Jesus Christ said
This is what Jesus Christ said about the Pharisees.
This is what Paul says about the Catholic Church
I wonder why you have chosen to cap this and nothing else. Maybe you think everyone should be stupid morons (by taking this verse out of context). The preaching of the cross is indeed foolishness, to them that do not believe. 1 Corinthians 1:18 (the verse immediately before your 19 caps). The Catholic Church preaches the cross in such a profound way, far deeper, far more beautiful, I pray that you might see that one day.
Do you understand what you are reading? How can I unless someone guide me.
D
Della
Guest
Mr. White isn’t wrong about everything, but he is wrong about some very essential things.
Of course, you and I agree Scripture is “clear” about many things we hold in common–that’s to be expected since we both believe that certain things are right/wrong. However, there are a good many people who do dispute what is clear and what isn’t–so who is right? Do we know what interpretation is right by majority vote? Is that what Jesus set up when he set up his Church and gave his Apostles the authority to speak in his name–by majority vote by everyone everywhere? No. Acts 15 gives us the model the Church has always employed with the First Council of Jerusalem, in which they had to decide issues with which they were dealing at that time. They sent letters to those concerned by the authority of both the Holy Spirit and by their authority given to them directly by Christ.And again, I have to disagree. There is no other way of interpreting the issues I listed. The Bible could not be more clear on them. For example, give me one verse that might challenge homosexuality being a sin. I can tell you that it is impossible, because it is not there. However, both the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures clearly speak against homosexuality. For anyone to interpret it differently is to deny Scriptures wholeheartedly. Also, not to draw too large of a comparison, but your last bit sounded exactly like the JW I studied with
Like Mr. White, even JWs can be right about a point some of the time.
Of course they are applying “no personal interpretation” to their particular beliefs. However the question then is–where do they get the right to do that? By what authority? God’s authority or their own? Not God’s authority because Christ didn’t found the JWs–Christ founded his Church, which because it is universal, is rightly called catholic, as we Catholics recite each Sunday in the Nicene Creed. Anyone can claim anything for themselves. However, the question is–can they prove it historically and theologically. As far as the JWs, and all of Protestantism for that matter, no they can’t.I never made such a claim. I have to wonder why you thought I expressed that idea.
I will say this, a body is one, is it not? Do my toes pray but my mind does not? Of course not. All the baptized compose the body of Christ. Therefore we all pray together. It’s not that we’re louder, rather we’re united in one intention–the salvation and well-being of all humankind. Do you never ask anyone to pray for you? Do you think by doing so you are influencing God more than if you pray alone? Of course not. You are asking them to do what God has commanded us to do–to pray for one another.
T
tstor
Guest
I am not sure I can truly appreciate your sarcasm. When you are reading an examination of Scriptures in a Catholic publication, would you say the same as you have said to me? Of course not, as there is nothing strange about appealing to Scriptures to make a point. And yes, I like to quote the Scriptures outright so that someone does not have to pull out a Bible if they do not want to.
Yes
Well, you are making an assumption that it is the Catholic Church he is speaking of. Jehovah’s Witnesses would say Paul was speaking of their organization, but that does not make them right. Anyone can make assertions.
Read the NASB translation. It is capitalized in it. I was not trying to make a point out of the phrase, but I was showing that Jesus appealed to Scripture. And are you suggesting that God did not give you the faculties to read and interpret His Word?
T
tstor
Guest
As White said in his debate with Matatics: “I think he is dead wrong and he thinks I am dead wrong” (from their debate on sola scriptura).
Once again, just because one person, or group, rejects a teaching that is clearly talked about in Scripture does not make it any less clear. If a calculus student does not properly use a formula, that does not make the formula unclear or inefficient. Similarly, if someone misuses the Bible, that does not make it any less clear or efficient.
JWs would teach that Christ did found their congregation. Your claim is the same as the JWs and Mormons. That is not to say, obviously, that Catholics are equally as wrong. Some teachings will be shared.Like Mr. White, even JWs can be right about a point some of the time.
So you are suggesting that the Catholic Church was founded by Peter?
I thought you meant this because you are telling me that you want saints to pray for you, as if your prayers are not good enough. I have never asked anyone to pray for me, no. I have never seen much purpose in it.I never made such a claim. I have to wonder why you thought I expressed that idea.
J
JB_Brother_4446
Guest
He himself is wrong on sooo many levels…
Revelation, the book that all Protestants use to condemn Catholics speaks of saintly intercession. James in his letter says that a righteous person’s prayer is pleasing to God. Who is more righteous than His saints in heaven?
D
Della
Guest
Of course he says that, but still someone can be right and someone can be wrong. For example, you say you know what Scripture means. Who is to say you are right or wrong? By whose authority do you know who is right and who is wrong? It’s all about authority–who has it and who doesn’t.
No one is saying that the Bible isn’t God’s word or that it’s never clear about some things, or that it’s inefficient. Of course it is. It’s not sufficient for what it was never intended to be–a doctrinal thesis. The Gospel tell us about Christ, his mission and much of what he taught, but not all that he taught, which the Gospels themselves tell us. And the Epistles were written mainly to correct problems and instruct the people about some things, but they were not and are not all that the Apostles taught. St. Paul clearly tells us that he conveyed some things “orally” not only in written form. It is the Church that has the authority from Christ himself to decide matters of faith and morals based, in part, on Scripture, which is a part of the overall Sacred Tradition that began with Adam and ended in Christ. There is no such thing as Sola Scriptura. The Apostles never taught it and no one else did until the reformers decided that they’d make that claim precisely so they could reject the clear teachings of the Church, founded by Christ. This is the point you have to come to accept if you are going to understand how theology is actually determined and has always been determined–not by the Bible alone.
As I wrote, anyone can claim anything they like, but can they prove it? And as I wrote before, the JWs and Mormons cannot make that claim because it simply isn’t true. Merely because splitter groups hold to some teachings that the Church determined long ago, doesn’t mean they are right in the things they rejected. There is only one truth, not many truths. Either Christ founded them or he didn’t. Historically he didn’t. They weren’t around in the first century.
No. I am telling you that Christ founded the Church on Peter, the Apostles and their faith in Christ. It’s just that simple.
Do you pray for others? I hope you do because it is an act of mercy towards others. Indeed, Christ commanded us to pray for others. I hope others are praying for me, as well. I need all the help I can get.
W
Wesrock
Guest
As I said, he is continuing on what he discussed in 1 Corinthians 3:18 - 23. Let me put it all together.
Paul’s instructions are clearly about resolving this dispute about followers of different apostles. He is rebuking them, and he insists that they not to pretend any are wiser than others or get caught up in such vain things. He uses scripture to support himself here, and his comments not to go beyond scripture here are limited to this context.
As Duane1966 pointed out, the epistles of Paul and Peter themselves go beyond what’s in any scriptural canon, citing oral traditions to make connections and prove their point. They were not above this, and clearly did not regard the written word as the only authoritative source.
D
Dalriadan39
Guest
But she wears a crown of 12 stars, is clothed with the sun and has the moon under her feet. What is the woman if not a queen? If a queen, of what?
W
Wesrock
Guest
To add to this, it’s really quite simple and has a christological basis. Christ is King over all things. As Christ is a Davidic king, and this is the fulfillment of the Davidic kingdom, then his mother, Mary, is properly the Queen Mother or Queen of all things. It’s an affirmation of Christ and his kingdom. The restoration of the Davidic kingdom would be expected to have a queen mother.
T
tstor
Guest
Who is to say that I am right or wrong? No one specifically. Someone can consult the Scriptures to see whether I am right or wrong.
Both JWs and Mormons would say that they were
Thank you for the clarification. While I do have some questions on Peter, I will not try and obscure the thread any further.
I pray for others if they request it. I do not believe my prayer will add any strength to their own.
T
tstor
Guest
Are you not righteous? Is your prayer not powerful?
T
tstor
Guest
Why not 1 Corinthians 3:5-9 or 1 Corinthians 4:1?
The Bible is not the only authoritative source, sure. I am suggesting that it is the only “god-breathed” source.
T
tstor
Guest
In my copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, it describes Mary as follows:
“Finally, the Immaculate Virgin, preserved from all stain of original sin…”
What does Genesis 3:16 say?
“To the woman He said, ‘I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth. In pain you shall bring forth children. Yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.’”
How is the woman in Revelation 12 described?
“and she was with child; and she cried out, being in labor and in pain to give birth.” (v2)
So how can this woman be Mary? And why do you believe the features listed insist on the interpretation of Queenship?
D
Darryl_B
Guest
You really had no reason to post a prolific amount of Scripture out of it’s actual context, what you did was what I term “shotgun Scripture”. Jesus says something about the Pharisees, you rip that Scripture and apply it to whoever you want. Paul says something about non-believers and you rip that Scripture and apply it to believers. That, my friend, is not using faculties, that is using a license granted not by God.
Yes. I know for a fact that the Scriptures cannot be interpreted outside the Catholic Church. The JWs and all the other cults are a witness to that, I tried, I failed many times, and when all was too confusing, I turned, trying to find harmony in what I knew, and in that dark night, I saw the light of the Catholic Church. At least the Ethiopian eunuch sought council rather than choose his private individualistic own “interpretation”, and invent a new church because of his opinions.
T
tstor
Guest
I guess Jesus also referenced Scripture too much? To me, there is never such a thing as too much of Scripture. Nothing I stated was taken out of its context. The Pharisees were the “guided” people. They taught others the Word of God. They were the teachers and the supposed to be the bearers of truth, just as the Catholic Church claims about itself today. Jesus said their religious traditions were not god-breathed. So why is it not appropriate for me to draw the comparison?
Regarding Paul, which verse are you speaking of?
- Status