Question about Catholic Bible

[daniel1212]

First, your premise is false about Tradition & Scripture. Apostolic Tradition IS equal with Scripture. One cannot pit Scripture against Tradition because it was never believed or practiced in such a fashion. The church has never added anything into doctrine. The church did not define herself with having that authority because such authority was given to her by Christ Himself.

I affirm that the RCC holds oral tradition (the parts Rome says is apostolic) to be equal to Scripture, but that she adds to what Scripture teaches as doctrine by making such traditions as praying to the departed and the bodily assumption of Mary to be doctrine. .

In addition, your statement that “the church did not define herself with having that authority because such authority was given to her by Christ Himself,” is invalid, as the reality is that it is the Catholic Church® that determines what Christ did, and that thus she possess assured infallibility, and thus only she can be right in any conflict with her.

 

[Nicea325]

I affirm that the RCC holds oral tradition (the parts Rome says is apostolic) to be equal to Scripture, but that she adds to what Scripture teaches as doctrine by making such traditions as praying to the departed and the bodily assumption of Mary to be doctrine. .

In addition, your statement that “the church did not define herself with having that authority because such authority was given to her by Christ Himself,” is invalid, as the reality is that it is the Catholic Church® that determines what Christ did, and that thus she possess assured infallibility, and thus only she can be right in any conflict with her.

No offense,but you first need to learn what the church truly teaches and not merely repeat what you have been told or have heard. Second, such “traditions” such as praying to dead are not novel beliefs because even orthodox Jews did the same and still do this very day. Are you familiar with church history? Problem is many Protestants do not have the Book of Maccabees in their Bibles,thus it is foreign to them. If the RCC adds what Scriptures teaches as doctrine,then explain to me why are you following a 27 NT canon set and defined by the CC? Where does Scripture mention a single word of a NT canon?

Nope! It is VERY valid that Christ Himself gave His OWN Church the authority. Unless you care to rebuke the very Words of God? The church did NOT determine what Christ did because Scripture is very clear that Jesus explicitly said He would not leave the 12 orphans by sending them the Holy Spirit (John 14:17,18) and (John 14:26). All the church has done for the past 2,000 years is parrot what God promised to do with His Church: Guide them into all Truth through the means of the Holy Spirit.

 

[daniel1212]

No offense,but you first need to learn what the church truly teaches and not merely repeat what you have been told or have heard. Second, such “traditions” such as praying to dead are not novel beliefs because even orthodox Jews did the same and still do this very day. Are you familiar with church history? Problem is many Protestants do not have the Book of Maccabees in their Bibles,thus it is foreign to them. If the RCC adds what Scriptures teaches as doctrine,then explain to me why are you following a 27 NT canon set and defined by the CC? Where does Scripture mention a single word of a NT canon?

Nope! It is VERY valid that Christ Himself gave His OWN Church the authority. Unless you care to rebuke the very Words of God? The church did NOT determine what Christ did because Scripture is very clear that Jesus explicitly said He would not leave the 12 orphans by sending them the Holy Spirit (John 14:17,18) and (John 14:26). All the church has done for the past 2,000 years is parrot what God promised to do with His Church: Guide them into all Truth through the means of the Holy Spirit.

It appears i know more of what the Roman church truly teaches than you, while it is you who evidences that you are merely repeating specious arguments.

We know that the Lord promised not to leave the apostles, and believers, alone, but to extrapolate from this an assured formulaic infallibility for the RCC is an interpretation, which even the EOs reject (as regards papal infallibility), as do many others who also hold to sola ecclesia, and the assurance you have of this interpretation is not because of what Scripture says, unless you are like an evangelical, but because the RCC says this is what it means and thus you have assurance, because you have made a (fallible) decision to submit to her.

The fact is that God also gave promises of His presence and guidance to Israel, (Dt. 4:31; Is. 41:10, etc.) and thus their leadership sat in the seat of Moses. But who presumed a level of assured veracity and perpetuation by them despite deviations which the Scripture did not provide for. And thus they challenged the authority of the itinerant Preacher who had not their sanction (Mk. 11:28-33) and reproved them by Scripture. And who established His claims upon Scripture and the attestation is affirms being given to Truth.

For it is abundant evidenced that as written, Scripture was the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and for testing truth claims, and providing for its establishment as such by supernatural means, based upon its Heavenly qualities, like as true men of God are (though others should confirm such).

As for prayer to departed saints (PTDS), that indeed is a novel belief as concerns Scripture, as only pagans prayed to someone else in Heaven - the Queen of it no less - (Jer. 44:17-19) and you cannot find even one example out of the multitude of prayers in Scripture of even one believer praying to anyone in Heaven but the Lord, nor in any instructions on who to pray to in Heaven (“our mother who art in Heaven…”), nor any insufficiency in immediate access to meet directly with God, (Heb. 10:19) or in Christ as the all-sufficient intercessor, (Heb. 2:17,18; 4:15,16; 7:25) Or in the Holy Spirit in interceding to Heaven. (Rm. 8:26,27; Gal. 4:6)

And resorting to justifying this PTDS by praying to others on earth (which ignores the why God treats communication by created being btwn the two realms) or forcing texts to infer this, will not change the facts.

As for other often-repeated arguments, the Jewish apocryphal book of Maccabees does not record praying to the departed, but 2 Maccabees 12:40-46 (written in Greek) supports intercession (in making an atonement) for souls who died because of idolatry (a mortal sin), and even then the official Catholic Bible states " The statement is made here, however, only for the purpose of proving that Judas believed in the resurrection of the just…His belief was similar to, but not quite the same as, the Catholic doctrine of purgatory.).

In addition, invoking the extraBiblical practice of some latter Jews will not support what the Holy Spirit gives no evidence of in Scripture - which would be incongruous for such a basic practice if God wanted to support it - and what He does warn of is “giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.” (Titus 1:14)

And research shows, this was a late practice, "It then becomes clear that at the time of Judas Maccabeus-around 170 B.C., a surprisingly innovative period-prayer for the dead was not practiced, but that a century later it was practiced by certain Jews.” — Jacques Le Goff, The Birth of Purgatory, trans. Arthur Goldhammer (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1984), p.45. lightshinesindarkness.com/purgatory_history_1.htm

 

[daniel1212]

… They break away, then break apart, then outright contradict each other. All the while trying to defend themselves with this Council of Trent stuff… .

And “they" refers to all that is called Christian but not in communion with Rome, but which would include those who are critically contrary to core Prot distinctives which originally defined it. Thus a more valid basic comparison would be between those who at least hold to Scripture as the sufficient supreme infallible authority on faith and morals, in its traditional conservative tradition, versus those who hold to the supremacy of the church, and or any other second class status for Scripture. And yes, the RCC does effectively hold to the latter.

Under the former model there is the lack a centralized authority over all, but have different denominations and churches with their own magisteriums which overall require assent to certain core truths which are commonly held (such as the truths of the apostles creed, plus the supremacy of Scripture, and salvation by grace through effectual faith, versus earned credits and faith in the church). And which contends those who hold to such are part of the one true church.

They certainly can and do disagree on many things, part of which is due to commitment to doctrine, as well as not simply giving implicit assent to a centralized magisterium and the assured veracity it may claim, (which effects the most comprehensive unity, as cults show), yet as evangelicals they exhibit a remarkable spiritual unity that transcends formal divisions, while they also testify to greater unity in core Biblical moral views and many core truths than their Catholic counterparts (though both are in decline).

And this common consent to basic core truths is also manifest in a common front against those who deny them (cults), as well as extra-biblical traditions of Catholicism.

In matters of interpretation, they do not claim to be assured infallibility, but hold the Scriptures to be the only assured infallible standard for obedience, and providing, explicitly or by due warrant, the Truth needed for salvation and perfection in faith, and providing for the church and magisterium, as well as for the use of reason, creeds and other helps, but as subject to the test of Scripture. Therefore doctrines must rest upon the weight of scriptural warrant, not the declaration of a mere mortal or office claiming assured infallibility.

These can see Scripture, as progressively written, abundantly evidencing that it was the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and for testing truth claims, and providing for its establishment as such by supernatural means, based upon its Heavenly qualities, like as true men of God are (though others should confirm such). And thus in principle its completion as an established book of books was also provided for, by making it manifest when there was no more like unto it.

And by this means most of the Divine writings of Scripture were established as being so before the church began. And which itself began in dissent from those who held the historical authority, as the church itself followed an itinerant preacher whom those who sat in the seat of Moses challenged as having no authority. (Mk. 11:28-33) But who established His claims upon Scripture and the manner of Heavenly attestation it affirms.

Under the sola ecclesia model you have different churches with different magisteriums with assured veracity, each claiming to be the one true church, but none of which can actually exercise authority over all others. And which can interpret both Scripture and Tradition differently. Thus Orthodox reject the Roman doctrines of universal papal jurisdiction, papal infallibility, purgatory, and the Immaculate Conception (etc.) as being untraditional. And then there are the sedevacantists and other Catholic schisms.

These require assent to certain core truths, with the Roman model in particular being more precise, requiring assent of faith to infallibly defined truths, though it is a matter of interpretation what these all consist off, while (arguably) allowing some dissent in noninfallible teachings, with these existing in different classes (which are not always clear, nor their meaning).

In addition, as very few Bible verses have been infallibly defined, and the principles of interpretation being imprecise, Catholics have a great deal of liberty to interpret Scripture to support their church.

But which can vary, as while they can lay claim to having an infallible magisterium as supreme authority on doctrine, this is very limited, with most of what Catholics practice and believe coming from the Ordinary magisterium, while they lack an infallible interpreter for their supreme authority.

In teaching, her authority does not rest upon the weight of scriptural substantiation, nor are the reasons or arguments behind an infallible decree necessarily infallible themselves, but while she may invoke Scripture in support, such an interpretation only has weight based upon the premise of her authority and assured formulaic infallibility, wherein she has infallibly defined that she is infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined scope and subject-based criteria. Thus the claim to consistency with Scripture and history rests upon her own “Divine” consciousness.

 

[daniel1212]

Pt. 2:

Under this model while she can work to produce documents of “universal” consent to doctrines, yet this universality of unity is limited to her own church in many things, while in reality there is substantial disagreement among her clergy and laity in both the meaning of “official” teachings as well as in areas not defined. And which diversity is what is effectually fostered by lack of real discipline, and honoring liberal Catholic in life and in death.

…But it’s interesting, with all of your academic discussion on all these technicalities, you just ignore the elephant in the middle of the room: that Luther was a fallible man, and, because of his beliefs, whatever other beliefs they were based on, does not matter, interfered with the Canon…

The elephant in the room is that assurance of Rome’s claim of assured infallibility relies upon her own claim to be so, while the RCC had yet to provide an infallible, indisputable canon until the year Luther died. And if we followed a man after the Catholic model, then we would reject James, as it seems Luther did, rather than letting books which were Scripture to become established after the progressive manner by which Old Testament books had been by the time of Christ, as seen by their abundant references to them.

.Isn’t it funny what sola scriptura has led to? A shattered arm of Christianity? I mean, look at the Seventh Day Adventists, look at the Lutherans, look at the Quakers, look at the Amana Colonies, look at the Baptists, all codifying there own little interpretation of Scripture they swear to be the true interpretation, and that they alone will be most favored on Judgement Day. See, you broke off, and then you turned into a spiritual mess.

.

Actually, the most aberrant groups are those which hold to sola ecclesia, as typically cults effectively or formally look to a certain leader (Ellen G. White, J. Smith, etc.) or office (WTS elders) as supreme, while groups like the Quakers can hardly be said to hold to SS after its Scriptural historical “tradition” (and yes, SS allows for that), while what is overall manifest among those who do is a common consent to core truths, including the gospel in which damned and morally destitute sinners are justified by a faith which effects manifest regeneration inn obedience. And yes, that is what Reformers taught , while it is Catholics today who evidence among the least of such. And thus the reality is the former SS class who evidence that the church is that of the living God far more than their institutionalized counterparts, Protestant or Catholic, regardless of all the self-proclamation of herself and preaching of a church by Roman Catholic apologists. And as one who was raised among devout Catholics, and later became manifestly born again with its heart and life changes, but remained as a weekly Mass going Catholic for 6 years, seeking to serve God s a lector and CCD teacher, i know well the difference.

It’s no wonder you want so bad to attack and disprove our True Faith. It’s contempt. You feel the same thing that the Muslims feel: You want to identify loosely with Catholicism, but only enough to gain credibility and look legit. But then of course, you want to destroy us, make us illegal, persecute us. Just like Muslims.

And here is another insolence appeal to the liberal victim mentality and elitist psychology articulated by a Roman Catholic apologist. You, who claim to be the One True Church®, to whom all are to submit a magisterium who speaks as surely Christ Himself when it so declares it is, and who declared formal submission to the pope is necessary for salvation (at least in the past), and who killed those who doctrinally opposed you, are now the victims, threatened by some Islamic-type Christians, which seems to include the Quakers!

Now you can say, “When did I want to make Catholicism Illegal?” Doesn’t matter. Your religious ancestors did, a couple of times. And , truth never changes through time. What was true then, is true now. And only the thin veneer of civilized restraint keeps that sentiment in check in this day and age. -

So we are the ones who taught your church to torture people (even witnesses) and kill them for theological deviations for hundreds of years, even being sanctioned by the very top? And that it was Catholics who instituted freedom of religion, etc.

Yes, i know it was not the alleged millions in the Inquisitions, and that was the way of the world, but which the early nonconformist church rejected, but the Protestants who had to unlearn such unScriptural means s they progressed, as we can change if Scripture shows us our errors.

Meanwhile, having lost the use of the sword of men which the church of Rome so much depended upon due to the nature of her converts, thus now she must allow allow the Nancy Pelosi type Catholics to remain.

Yet according to your “truth never changes” hermeneutic, then the church of Rome can still be portrayed as dangerous to the bodies and not just the souls of men, as it could once again hunt us down, imprison and kill us, and torture its own aberrant members. I think many traditional Catholics long for that day.

You know why I don’t argue your little Council of Trent puzzles? Because it doesn’t matter. It’s a rabbit hole of Protestant logic. Who cares! I’d rather pray, enjoy the day, and live in the warm glow of Jesus’ True Church He founded. The True Church.

No, it means you recognize that you cannot resort to defending that this is the OTC by the favorite Catholic polemic that Luther dissented from an indisputable canon, and was alone in doing do.

 

[daniel1212]

Pt. 3:

Now as for these comments about me trying to recruit you to convert to Catholicism. Please don’t be offended by my self-amusing remark. You just keep being whatever you are. --To be Catholic, you have to love Jesus and the Almighty with all your heart, your soul, your whole being.

More arrogance, as this is hardly the case, as in reality you just have to be as nominal as Ted Kennedy or more and die in her arms, as he did as one honored.

As a staunch Roman Catholic i expect that you would exclude such as self excommunicants, but the fact is that liberals make up the majority of Rcs, and the leadership counts them as members in life and in death, and does not treat them otherwise, as Scripture requires. For like the type of government that Catholics typically vote for, Roman Catholicism fosters a faith-dependance upon herself and her presumed powers to gain anyone who dies under her address eventual entrance into heaven.

You have to cherish that Communion with the Eucharist like nothing else matters…

And maybe this is why so many arrive late and leaving early after partaking of the only thing that matters. People should not disturb this communion and they can meditate better in their car.

However, the body of Christ (in context) spoken of in 1Cor. 11:17-33ff is the church, and love for each other is conspicuously absent from your idealistic list that delineates what one must do to be a Catholic, and which is not the reality in any case.

You have to love the way we get special thanks from Judaism, the very oldest Faith, as brothers in the eyes of the Alpha and Omega. You have to feel thankful for all this to embrace Catholicsim. .

Actually, those who remember history know different, and that Luther’s later exasperated scorn and counsel was not unique.

And you’re a long way from it.

It is necessary to be far from the deviations Roman Catholicism teaches in order to follow the true life-giving Christ, and thus most Catholics who joined evangelical churches (the tide definitely runs this way) say they did so due to the spiritual deficiency in Catholic ones, and following true regeneration in evangelical churches, they become conservative Christians.

 

[Nicea325]

It appears i know more of what the Roman church truly teaches than you, while it is you who evidences that you are merely repeating specious arguments.

We know that the Lord promised not to leave the apostles, and believers, alone, but to extrapolate from this an assured formulaic infallibility for the RCC is an interpretation, which even the EOs reject (as regards papal infallibility), as do many others who also hold to sola ecclesia, and the assurance you have of this interpretation is not because of what Scripture says, unless you are like an evangelical, but because the RCC says this is what it means and thus you have assurance, because you have made a (fallible) decision to submit to her.

The fact is that God also gave promises of His presence and guidance to Israel, (Dt. 4:31; Is. 41:10, etc.) and thus their leadership sat in the seat of Moses. But who presumed a level of assured veracity and perpetuation by them despite deviations which the Scripture did not provide for. And thus they challenged the authority of the itinerant Preacher who had not their sanction (Mk. 11:28-33) and reproved them by Scripture. And who established His claims upon Scripture and the attestation is affirms being given to Truth.

For it is abundant evidenced that as written, Scripture was the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and for testing truth claims, and providing for its establishment as such by supernatural means, based upon its Heavenly qualities, like as true men of God are (though others should confirm such).

As for prayer to departed saints (PTDS), that indeed is a novel belief as concerns Scripture, as only pagans prayed to someone else in Heaven - the Queen of it no less - (Jer. 44:17-19) and you cannot find even one example out of the multitude of prayers in Scripture of even one believer praying to anyone in Heaven but the Lord, nor in any instructions on who to pray to in Heaven (“our mother who art in Heaven…”), nor any insufficiency in immediate access to meet directly with God, (Heb. 10:19) or in Christ as the all-sufficient intercessor, (Heb. 2:17,18; 4:15,16; 7:25) Or in the Holy Spirit in interceding to Heaven. (Rm. 8:26,27; Gal. 4:6)

And resorting to justifying this PTDS by praying to others on earth (which ignores the why God treats communication by created being btwn the two realms) or forcing texts to infer this, will not change the facts.

As for other often-repeated arguments, the Jewish apocryphal book of Maccabees does not record praying to the departed, but 2 Maccabees 12:40-46 (written in Greek) supports intercession (in making an atonement) for souls who died because of idolatry (a mortal sin), and even then the official Catholic Bible states " The statement is made here, however, only for the purpose of proving that Judas believed in the resurrection of the just…His belief was similar to, but not quite the same as, the Catholic doctrine of purgatory.).

In addition, invoking the extraBiblical practice of some latter Jews will not support what the Holy Spirit gives no evidence of in Scripture - which would be incongruous for such a basic practice if God wanted to support it - and what He does warn of is “giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.” (Titus 1:14)

And research shows, this was a late practice, "It then becomes clear that at the time of Judas Maccabeus-around 170 B.C., a surprisingly innovative period-prayer for the dead was not practiced, but that a century later it was practiced by certain Jews.” — Jacques Le Goff, The Birth of Purgatory, trans. Arthur Goldhammer (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1984), p.45. lightshinesindarkness.com/purgatory_history_1.htm

How ironic, you state someone else is arrogant, yet you are doing the same by claiming you know more about Catholicism than I do? I know you don’t based merely on your comments! And wrong! The EO reject papal primacy more today,but as I stated,you evidently have not read church history enough to make such a baseless conclusion. Do you honestly believe the EO always rejected papal primacy?

And wrong again! It is what Scripture says and not what YOU wish it had say in order to satisfy your personal axe or grind against the Catholic Church. I have not made a fallible decision because infallible decisions are established by the Church founded and promised with the Holy Spirit. Precisely why Protestanism is so divided due to its “individualistic- interpretation” approach to scripture. Is it a reformation of Christianity or deformation?

Again,why do you accept an infallible decision made by the CC in regards to a 27 NT canon? Please show me one verse making reference to a NT canon? Obviously you are guilty of your own charge:

“…but because the RCC says this is what it means and thus you have assurance, because you have made a (fallible) decision to submit to her.”

Your words…not mine!

 

[Nicea325]

It appears i know more of what the Roman church truly teaches than you, while it is you who evidences that you are merely repeating specious arguments.

We know that the Lord promised not to leave the apostles, and believers, alone, but to extrapolate from this an assured formulaic infallibility for the RCC is an interpretation, which even the EOs reject (as regards papal infallibility), as do many others who also hold to sola ecclesia, and the assurance you have of this interpretation is not because of what Scripture says, unless you are like an evangelical, but because the RCC says this is what it means and thus you have assurance, because you have made a (fallible) decision to submit to her.

The fact is that God also gave promises of His presence and guidance to Israel, (Dt. 4:31; Is. 41:10, etc.) and thus their leadership sat in the seat of Moses. But who presumed a level of assured veracity and perpetuation by them despite deviations which the Scripture did not provide for. And thus they challenged the authority of the itinerant Preacher who had not their sanction (Mk. 11:28-33) and reproved them by Scripture. And who established His claims upon Scripture and the attestation is affirms being given to Truth.

For it is abundant evidenced that as written, Scripture was the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and for testing truth claims, and providing for its establishment as such by supernatural means, based upon its Heavenly qualities, like as true men of God are (though others should confirm such).

As for prayer to departed saints (PTDS), that indeed is a novel belief as concerns Scripture, as only pagans prayed to someone else in Heaven - the Queen of it no less - (Jer. 44:17-19) and you cannot find even one example out of the multitude of prayers in Scripture of even one believer praying to anyone in Heaven but the Lord, nor in any instructions on who to pray to in Heaven (“our mother who art in Heaven…”), nor any insufficiency in immediate access to meet directly with God, (Heb. 10:19) or in Christ as the all-sufficient intercessor, (Heb. 2:17,18; 4:15,16; 7:25) Or in the Holy Spirit in interceding to Heaven. (Rm. 8:26,27; Gal. 4:6)

And resorting to justifying this PTDS by praying to others on earth (which ignores the why God treats communication by created being btwn the two realms) or forcing texts to infer this, will not change the facts.

As for other often-repeated arguments, the Jewish apocryphal book of Maccabees does not record praying to the departed, but 2 Maccabees 12:40-46 (written in Greek) supports intercession (in making an atonement) for souls who died because of idolatry (a mortal sin), and even then the official Catholic Bible states " The statement is made here, however, only for the purpose of proving that Judas believed in the resurrection of the just…His belief was similar to, but not quite the same as, the Catholic doctrine of purgatory.).

In addition, invoking the extraBiblical practice of some latter Jews will not support what the Holy Spirit gives no evidence of in Scripture - which would be incongruous for such a basic practice if God wanted to support it - and what He does warn of is “giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.” (Titus 1:14)

And research shows, this was a late practice, "It then becomes clear that at the time of Judas Maccabeus-around 170 B.C., a surprisingly innovative period-prayer for the dead was not practiced, but that a century later it was practiced by certain Jews.” — Jacques Le Goff, The Birth of Purgatory, trans. Arthur Goldhammer (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1984), p.45. lightshinesindarkness.com/purgatory_history_1.htm

So you know more than I do about the RCC-eh? You go on believing what you wish.

 

[Nicea325]

daniel1212:

It is necessary to be far from the deviations Roman Catholicism teaches in order to follow the true life-giving Christ, and thus most Catholics who joined evangelical churches (the tide definitely runs this way) say they did so due to the spiritual deficiency in Catholic ones, and following true regeneration in evangelical churches, they become conservative Christians.

Deviations? Kindly tell me where Jesus authorized all the thousands of denominations (all man-made churches) to start their own churches? Speaking of spiritual deficiency?

BTW: You still did not answer me: Where does the NT mention the canon of 27 books?

 

[jlhargus]

Mark

 

[Mickey]

test

 

[daniel1212]

How ironic, you state someone else is arrogant, yet you are doing the same by claiming you know more about Catholicism than I do? !

As is typical, this is superficial reading or misrepresentation, as i said “it appears i know more of what the Roman church truly teaches than you,” in response to your arrogant unwarranted kneejerk remark.

I know you don’t based merely on your comments! And wrong! The EO reject papal primacy more today,but as I stated,you evidently have not read church history enough to make such a baseless conclusion. Do you honestly believe the EO always rejected papal primacy?

Once again you are superficially reading my response or exhibiting a reactionary reading something into it which i did not say, as i did not mention papal infallibility per se, much less their position in time past, but said, “We know that the Lord promised not to leave the apostles, and believers, alone, but to extrapolate from this an assured formulaic infallibility for the RCC is an interpretation, which even the EOs reject (as regards papal infallibility)”

But the reason they did not always reject papal primacy is because what it later became was a development, as far more weightier Catholics and scholars than you will testify to, and which the EOs will argue with you.

And wrong again! It is what Scripture says and not what YOU wish it had say in order to satisfy your personal axe or grind against the Catholic Church.

It is indeed what Scripture says that is supreme, but that is not your position, but that whatever the church of Rome says is supreme, and as said, the veracity of her decisions do not rest upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation, and she rarely interprets texts, nor are the reasons or arguments behind an infallible decree necessarily infallible themselves, but assurance of her veracity rests upon the premise of her assured infallibility.

I have not made a fallible decision because infallible decisions are established by the Church founded and promised with the Holy Spirit.

We understand that once you have made that decision to submit to the RCC then you can leave the driving to her, but unless you are infallible, or the church made the decision for you, then the decision to submit to the RCC was a result of your own fallible reasoning and judgment in examining reasons for this. Or would you allow that Protestants also make infallible decisions based upon such reasoning whenever they concur with Rome on something?

Again,why do you accept an infallible decision made by the CC in regards to a 27 NT canon?

For the same reason we affirm such primitive truths as Jonah and the great fish, which is not because we recognize the Jews as assuredly infallible, much less Rome (who has approved Bible commentary holding this to be a fable), but because it is warranted.

Please show me one verse making reference to a NT canon? Obviously you are guilty of your own charge:

It is you who lacks and needs no reference from Scripture to teach doctrine, and you cannot provide any for the church deciding upon a finished canon, much less for things like the bodily assumption of Mary, though you may attempt to do so based upon scriptural principle, which is the basis for our canon.

The reality is that Scripture was supreme even before there was a finished canon, while the issue is how writings become established as Scripture, and which provides for its completion, and a reference is not needed for the number of books, as that would become manifest accordingly, nor was a number needed in the fist century for books for to be referenced as Scripture.

It is []abundantly evidenced ](http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Bible/2Tim_3.html#Partial)"…but because the RCC says this is what it means and thus you have assurance, because you have made a (fallible) decision to submit to her."

Your words…not mine!

That is your doctrine, unless you are an evangelical and claim to have assurance of doctrine based upon Scripture, or allow that the use of fallible reasoning by such can result in an infallible decision (which is tenable).

 

[daniel1212]

daniel1212:

Deviations? Kindly tell me where Jesus authorized all the thousands of denominations (all man-made churches) to start their own churches? Speaking of spiritual deficiency?

BTW: You still did not answer me: Where does the NT mention the canon of 27 books?

The church He authorized can be quite varied as seen in the various different churches in Revelation, none of which are told to look to a supreme man reigning in Rome but are dealt with on an individual basis with the people being directly addressed, but operating under the principle of leadership.

But which originally saw an ecumenical council of manifestly God-ordained apostles, whose authenticity was based upon manifest spiritual purity and power, (2Cor. 6:1-10) and dealing with major basic issues if needed, which is the ideal, but which apostolic qualifications (of personal discipleship by the Lord: Acts 1:21,22; cf. 1Cor. 9:1; Gal. 1:12,17,18; and mighty signs and wonders: (2Cor. 12:12; Rm. 15:19) the RCC neither meets or manifest, while no further apostolic successors were given after the one needed to maintain the original 12 (Acts 1:15-26; Rv. 21:14; Acts 12:2)

And while the church sadly exists with formal divisions, they share a common consent to core truths, and gain their members by preaching the gospel which effects manifest regeneration, and the basic spiritual unity of Christ in them and they in Christ, (Jn. 17:21-23) operate under the principle of Godly leadership. Yet if the church must be restricted to one centralized authority over all then each and everyone can claim to be the OTC in particular, which is most divisive, and require submission to one whose unity is largely that of error.

In addition, the Lord Jesus authorized rejection of censored a sectarian spirit against those who did His work, (Mk. 9:38-40) and also authorized rejection of those who claimed perpetual authenticity based upon Divine promises and historical decent, when such remain impenitent in their presumptuous serious deviations from Scripture, else the church, which began in dissent from those who did, never would be valid.

And in the further revelation which He promised, (Jn. 16:12-15) the church is revealed as an essentially spiritual entity, and that authenticity is based upon effectual Abrahamic-type faith, (Rm. 2:28,29) by which faith in Christ as the Divine Son of God the church has its members (1Cor. 12:13) and overcomes. (1Jn. 5:5)

In contrast is the church which whose supreme leadership claims to be apostolic but manifestly is not, and includes men who were so grossly impenitently immoral that they would not even qualify as N.T. church members, let alone successors to Peter (if he had any).

And which ordains a separate class of sacerdotal clergy called priests, contrary to the one office (Titus 1:5-7) of bishops/elders, and presumes these (with few exceptions) all have the gift (1Cor. 7:7) of celibacy, and its resultant large amounts of homosexuals.

And which made good use of forgeries (and lacked the required unanimous consent of the “Fathers” in the literal sense for what its worth), and tortured and killed theological dissidents, and ruled over those without, contrary to the N.T. church (and which Prots had to unlearn from her).

And who gains most of her members by baptizing (sprinkling) infants on proxy faith contrary to the stated requirements of repentance and whole-hearted faith, (Acts 2:28; (Acts 8:36,37) which the very young may have.

And who autocratically defines herself as assuredly infallible, and the supreme authority on faith and morals, and constantly exalts and preaches herself, fostering much confidence in her claimed powers and one’s own merit as gaining eternal life, even for the most nominal of those whom she counts as members, which her leadership fails to discipline after the Scriptural manner.

And who largely fosters a Biblically illiterate membership which holds to liberal moral views and spiritual deadness, much in contrast to her evangelical counterparts, which far more Catholics become due to the spiritual deficiencies in her, then those whom she gains from them.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

I read several months, close to a year ago. If I run into it again, I will definitely share it with you.

Hi Pablope,

I’m wondering whether this Internet posting by Jimmy Akin may have been the source of the erroneous (or at least grossly misleading) information about the page numbers in Luther’s Bible that we discussed awhile back?

cin.org/users/james/files/deuteros.htm

It’s curious because this essay also seems to be a sort of “ground-zero” for disseminating a great deal of other erroneous information, including the dreaded “Council of Jamnia.” And sadly, no sources are cited by Jimmy Akin, so I can’t go back or drill down any further.

I would be curious whether the essay looks familiar to you regarding the page numbers.

 

[Anna_Scott]

And this advances your cause that we “come home” how?

Here we go again. luther did nothng regarding scripture that was not permitted by the Church in his time.

They are your brothers/ancestors, too. Every non-catholic western communion has its roots, either directly or indirectly , in the Catholic Church. In fact, more have their roots in the CC than in Lutheranism, since virtually all do not have roots in Lutheranism, but rather the Reformed, or Baptist, or anabaptist.

Who is the “you” you are referring to? I can tell you that I am not in a spiritual mess.

I want to indentify with all Christians - Catholic, Orthodox, you name it - because that was Christ’s call - that we all be one. Credibility and legit charges here are nonsense.

Waiting for yor response regarding the Second Diet at Speyer, 1529. :coffeeread:

Back up your charge with sources, please.

And may you be blessed there, in word and sacrament. Seems like some pretty long posts for someone who doesn’t care.

Great. Again, may you be blessed by these.



Jon

Jon,
I admire your charity and restraint.

I also want to identity with all Christians and long for unity in Christ. As I’ve said before on other threads, what happens in one part of Christendom affects all of us. You really get that, and many Catholics, here, do as well–and bear witness to that over and over again.

I think that instead of taking “shots from the cheap seats,” we must lift up one another in prayer; and with all that is going on these days, a great deal of prayer is needed. Actually, it has always been needed. That is why we are called to pray without ceasing.

I remain a fan of your posts.
Anna

 

[pablope]

Hi Pablope,

I’m wondering whether this Internet posting by Jimmy Akin may have been the source of the erroneous (or at least grossly misleading) information about the page numbers in Luther’s Bible that we discussed awhile back?

cin.org/users/james/files/deuteros.htm

It’s curious because this essay also seems to be a sort of “ground-zero” for disseminating a great deal of other erroneous information, including the dreaded “Council of Jamnia.” And sadly, no sources are cited by Jimmy Akin, so I can’t go back or drill down any further.

I would be curious whether the essay looks familiar to you regarding the page numbers.

Hi, Dave…I read the link you provided…I am not sure it is this. The info I read was info provided in a previous thread…with a link to the source. This is what I can remember.

I think we kind of nailed down the page number misunderstanding…based on the info provided by Tertum…

Certain books that did not express this were critically questioned by Luther: particularly James, Jude, Hebrews, and Revelation.[18] The editors of Luther’s Works explain,

“In terms of order, Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation come last in Luther’s New Testament because of his negative estimate of their apostolicity. In a catalogue of “The Books of the New Testament” which followed immediately upon his Preface to the New Testament… Luther regularly listed these four—without numbers—at the bottom of a list in which he named the other twenty-three books, in the order in which they still appear in English Bibles, and numbered them consecutively from 1–23… a procedure identical to that with which he also listed the books of the Apocrypha.”[19]

Anyway…I think there is one more task for you to confirm…if it is the Luther Bible you looked at…to confirm the list…and the last 4 without numbers…same as what he did in the OT.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

…And this is that someone you refer to. No, I don’t have a misunderstanding of Protestant faiths, and no, I do not have a poor view. I like sometimes like using generalities and jabs to Protestants to see them scramble and try to defend sola scriptura. They break away, then break apart, then outright contradict each other. All the while trying to defend themselves with this Council of Trent stuff. …No, not all Protestants have the same beliefs, they don’t all watch 700 Club or Joel Osteen, and they don’t all pray for money. I mean, the Quakers don’t even have televisions.

…But it’s interesting, with all of your academic discussion on all these technicalities, you just ignore the elephant in the middle of the room: that Luther was a fallible man, and, because of his beliefs, whatever other beliefs they were based on, does not matter, interfered with the Canon. He did his part, and subsequent Protestants did their part, in marginalizing, and ommitting Scripture. Protestants like to get caught up in these psuedo-intellectual discussions and feel like they can justify Scripture tampering. You can’t.

Isn’t it funny what sola scriptura has led to? A shattered arm of Christianity? I mean, look at the Seventh Day Adventists, look at the Lutherans, look at the Quakers, look at the Amana Colonies, look at the Baptists, all codifying there own little interpretation of Scripture they swear to be the true interpretation, and that they alone will be most favored on Judgement Day. What a mess. And you defend your little branch of this mess saying, “We don’t pray for money,” “We have the image of Jesus in our Church,” “We still take the Host four times a year,” “We don’t have Jumbotrons.” Yes, but your Protestant brothers do. These are your religious brothers/ancestors. Don’t you have any will to defend them? Do you just turn your back on them and say, “We don’t care about them, I’m referring to Episcopalians. My own little world.”

See, you broke off, and then you turned into a spiritual mess. It’s no wonder you want so bad to attack and disprove our True Faith. It’s contempt. You feel the same thing that the Muslims feel: You want to identify loosely with Catholicism, but only enough to gain credibility and look legit. But then of course, you want to destroy us, make us illegal, persecute us. Just like Muslims.

Now you can say, “When did I want to make Catholicism Illegal?” Doesn’t matter. Your religious ancestors did, a couple of times. And , truth never changes through time. What was true then, is true now. And only the thin veneer of civilized restraint keeps that sentiment in check in this day and age. -And of course that much of the New World is Catholic and Britain would look silly trying to make it illegal in 2012, much less the American eastern seaboard.

You know why I don’t argue your little Council of Trent puzzles? Because it doesn’t matter. It’s a rabbit hole of Protestant logic. Who cares! I’d rather pray, enjoy the day, and live in the warm glow of Jesus’ True Church He founded. The True Church.

Now as for these comments about me trying to recruit you to convert to Catholicism. Please don’t be offended by my self-amusing remark. You just keep being whatever you are. --To be Catholic, you have to love Jesus and the Almighty with all your heart, your soul, your whole being. You have to cherish that Communion with the Eucharist like nothing else matters. You have to think so highly about all the Saints past that you would do anything to meet them in person. You have to love all of the Catholic traditions handed down for thousands of years. You have to love our liturgical calender with all of it’s special days and intricacies. You have to love the way we fought to free The Holy Land. You have to love the way we get special thanks from Judaism, the very oldest Faith, as brothers in the eyes of the Alpha and Omega. You have to feel thankful for all this to embrace Catholicsim.

And you’re a long way from it.

Your tone leaves a lot to desire…

Let’s compare your post with 1 Peter 3:8-22

[bibledrb]1 Peter 3:8-22[/bibledrb]

In the same way you might look at all Protestants because of one example, all Protestants might look at you as all Catholics. I have used a bad tone at times as well and it is a very humbling (but rewarding) experience to retract and approach differences with charity.

In Him,

Jose

 

[aragonjohn1]

The Jewish Septuagent (the part that most other Christians reject) is quoted in the new testament 300 times out of the 360 old testament quotes while the group of old testament scriptures (pharisee scriptures) used by Luther were not defined until the late second century

Also you may need to read where we got the bible by Henry g graham. It is Available from catholic answers or at your local library.

Shalom.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

“In terms of order, Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation come last in Luther’s New Testament because of his negative estimate of their apostolicity. In a catalogue of “The Books of the New Testament” which followed immediately upon his Preface to the New Testament… Luther regularly listed these four—without numbers—at the bottom of a list in which he named the other twenty-three books, in the order in which they still appear in English Bibles, and numbered them consecutively from 1–23… a procedure identical to that with which he also listed the books of the Apocrypha.”[19]

Anyway…I think there is one more task for you to confirm…if it is the Luther Bible you looked at…to confirm the list…and the last 4 without numbers…same as what he did in the OT.

So yes, this above is correct. The only thing I would quibble with a bit is calling this list a “catalogue” in that in its context this list functions as a Table of Contents. So picture:

OLD TESTAMENT

1. Genesis
2. Exodus
3. Leviticus

[etc.]

Then when Luther gets to the Deuterocanon, he continues to list the books under the broad title “OLD TESTAMENT,” but without their ordinal number. The same technique is used for the New Testament in reference to the books listed in your quote.

But I think (and really, really hope) we are clear that this particular number has nothing whatsoever to do with page numbers–which aren’t used anywhere in Luther’s Bible–contra Jimmy Akin’s claim in his essay.

 

[submariner2]

The Jewish Septuagent (the part that most other Christians reject) is quoted in the new testament 300 times out of the 360 old testament quotes while the group of old testament scriptures (pharisee scriptures) used by Luther were not defined until the late second century

Also you may need to read where we got the bible by Henry g graham. It is Available from catholic answers or at your local library.

Shalom.

aragon,

That may be true but it is because the authors of the NT spoke Greek and naturally used the Septuagent which is for Greek speakers.

Actually Luther used the Latin Vulgate. That was the bible he used to translate into German including the apochrypha. Luther followed Jerome who translated the Vulagate from Greek and Hebrew into Latin, who labeled the Deuterocanicals as “apocrypha” meaning not to be used for doctrines. This issue had never been settled by the RCC until Trent when the Deuterocanicals were said to be equal to the rest of scripture.

Rob