since the Bible is the Word of God it is all we need...

[PRmerger]

They are wrong, not because “I say so,” because they are not able to discern that the 27 books of the NT are inerrant & lack contradictions, as well as the other godly criteria previously mentioned for Inspiration. Plus, Scripture alone states that ALL of Paul’s epistles are God-breathed (2 Peter 3:15-16), which are also inerrant & lack contradictions. So, I think I’ll place my faith in what Inspired Scripture says about Inspired Scripture, & not “some folks” who have no authority from God.

This is the same thing the CC says to you: you are wrong not because the Church “says so”, but because you hare not able to discern the revelation of God correctly.

So it’s curious indeed that you permit yourself to act as magisterium for these anti-Pauline folks, yet bristle at the Church telling you that your interpretations are wrong.

Incidentally, where do you get the criteria for Inspiration? “It had to be written by an apostle or one of their disciples” is mentioned in what Bible verse? Book, chapter and verse, please.

Also, these anti-Pauline folks just say that “Jesus’ words only” are what’s inspired. So they can readily dismiss St. Peter’s first encyclical, (just like you dismiss encyclicals).

They have used your paradigm of: I get to read the texts and decide for myself it it’s inspired…

and they have simply come up with a different conclusion than you.

You cannot tell them they are wrong for using the very same paradigm you do.

 

[PRmerger]

That’s not talking about Purgatory. Of course nothing “unclean” can enter Heaven. That’s why Scripture states we are “cleansed” by the shed blood of Christ, not the non-existent fires of Purgatory. In fact, that verse doesn’t even describe Purgatory in the way the CC teaches it.

But let’s just make it clear that you believe that nothing unclean can enter heaven, and that your soul, at this very moment, if you* have had an impure thought, is not clean. If you believe it’s somehow purged before you enter heaven…then you believe in purgatory.

Or, let’s put it this way: if you died tonight, after, say, thinking a snarky thought about someone you’re engaged in dialogue with, would you be worthy to stand before the Eternal Light, with that snarky thought in your mind/heart/spirit?

No?

Would you go to hell for that? No.

But you’d have to be cleansed before you stand before The Throne.

And that, my friend, is nothing more (and nothing less) than purgatory.

*You = rhetorical you. Not personal you.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, & that’s why we need a Savior to “cleanse” us from our sins.

Amen! Very Catholic, this!

Just because a person accepts Jesus as Savior & Lord doesn’t mean we won’t sin.

Indeed. You are very Catholic with this assertion, as well.

The the sin that eternally separates us from God is the original sin passed down from us from Adam. Jesus’ shed blood cleansed us from that sin,

Totally Catholic, this.

because Jesus was the “Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world.”

Professed and proclaimed loudly and proudly every day, in every corner of the world, from the rising of the sun to its setting, at every hour of the day, at every Mass.

But when we do sin, we have an Advocate between God & man, that the unrepentant doesn’t have.

Oh, so Catholic!

But if we commit a sin, but don’t get the chance to repent of that particular sin before we die, that isn’t going to prevent us from immediately entering Heaven,

How does that work, then? Sin on our souls. Nothing unclean can enter.

How does your pastor reconcile this? What happens to the sin on our soul when we die?

since as Paul states, "it is better to be absent from the body and at home with the Lord.

Do you have an obscure translation?

2 Corinthians 5:8, in all the most common translations, doesn’t say what you say it does.

biblehub.com/2_corinthians/5-8.htm

All of the translations I saw profess that St. Paul would prefer to be away from the body and present with God…but not what you said.

Perhaps you should read my blog post on how people opposing Catholicism simply quote St. Paul as saying something he never said.

#irony

threeminuteapologetics.blogspot.com/2012/02/purgatory-to-be-absent-from-body-is-to.html

That was written by me in 2012, BTW.

 

[PRmerger]

But if we commit a sin, but don’t get the chance to repent of that particular sin before we die, that isn’t going to prevent us from immediately entering Heaven, since as Paul states, "it is better to be absent from the body and at home with the Lord. Paul never describes any kind of “intermediate” place for Christians between earth & Heaven.

Incidentally, taz, if you’re going to use this verse as apologia for the nonexistence of purgatory “Paul never describes” it…then it also, logically, is apologia for the nonexistence of hell–“Paul never describes it”, either.

Is that what you want to say? Hell doesn’t exist because St. Paul never mentions it when describing being absent from his body?

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t believe that I can make my soul “lily-white.”

Very Catholic, this.

It’s “white as snow” because Christ cleansed it with His shed blood.

Really. Your soul is “lily-white”, now?

So,-] you’re /-]" your assumption" of what I believe about myself is wrong.

Fair enough. Although I find it amusing that when you tell me I’m wrong you’re also…well, wrong.

Assertions to your having a “lily-white” soul notwithstanding, I’d like to propose a quote from the non-Catholic CS Lewis:

“Our souls demand purgatory, don’t they? Even if God doesn’t mind people entering heaven dripping with mud and slime, should we not reply, I’d rather be cleansed first,’ even if it may hurt?”–CS Lewis.

 

[PRmerger]

My previous post explained this - historically. I can’t help you don’t understand this, or don’t believe it. Let me ask you then, “why” did Jesus separate “the Psalms” from “the Prophets” in Luke 24:44-45), rather than simply referring to the OT as “the Law & the Prophets.”

Because he was asserting that there’s a 3-fold division in the OT: Prophets, the Law, and the Psalms.

The 7 books from the deuterocanon fit quite nicely into these 3 divisions.

 

[PRmerger]

You’re getting WAY of topic, & by your comments, still not understanding what I’m saying. Sorry, I don’t think I can help you.

You can’t dismiss something as not being inspired because it contains fanciful stories.

That would mean that Acts, which proclaims that people were healed just by passing St. Peter’s shadow–a rather fanciful concept to be sure–isn’t inspired.

And that means that you still have to tell us why you don’t consider the Epistles of St. Clement to be theopneustos. They were, after all, written by a disciple to the Apostles.

 

[PRmerger]

“All Scripture is inspired by God” (2 Timothy 3:16)

“…our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters (epistles), speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures” (2 Peter 3:15-16)

Peter refers to ALL of Paul’s writings as “epistles” (not tracts), as well as Scripture. Paul states that all Scripture is Inspired (God-breathed).

What makes something a tract?

 

[PRmerger]

No, I was like the noble-minded Bereans & compared it TO Scripture.

Well, since the Bereans compared the writings to the OT only, if you were actually being “like the noble-minded Bereans” you would have had to compare things to the OT only.

Once I read Scripture & found no errors in it, I believed it to be Inspired.

LOL!

How would you know if it had “no errors” unless you already received the kerygma.

Where, exactly did you receive this kerygma, so you could compare it to the texts you were studying?

So, my faith wasn’t based on anyone’s “tradition.” It was based on comparing their “claims” of the Inspiration of Scripture, by actually READING Scripture.

Comparing their claims to…what, exactly?

Also, could you please 'splain how you were able to study the Gospel of Mark and ascertain that it was actually written by the apostle Mark, without taking anyone else’s word for this?

Remember, you asserted this:

BZZZT!!! No, that’s not why. They may have been the ones who “initially” informed me of this, since I never learned any of this from the CC, but unlike when I was Catholic, I was encouraged to research it for myself, which I did, which was something I was never, nor would ever been, encouraged in my years as a Catholic.

in response to my claim that you really do accept some things simply because you believe what someone told you:

I also propose that you accept “on faith” a lot of what these “godly men” told you simply because you trust them. Nothing wrong with that of course. It would be impossible for us to investigate each and every fact told to us by someone. We accept lots of things simply because “they told me”. For example, I believe, “because Mrs. Caltigarone, my 4th grade teacher, told me” that Kathmandu is the capital of Nepal. I have never actually been there to investigate whether this is actually correct.

So you and I go by faith in a lot of things.

 

[benhur]

Matthew 23:1Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples, 2saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves** in the chair of Moses**; 3therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them. 4“They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger

Give me the OT Scripture passage detailing the chair of Moses and that the scribes and Pharisees hold this authority.

Hey, I submit to the pope , when he speaks or even does “the Truth”.

 

[PRmerger]

Hey, I submit to the pope , when he speaks or even does “the Truth”.

Well, that reminds me of a quote: “When I submit only when I agree, then the one to whom I submit really is ME.”

 

[benhur]

Yet I have appealed ONLY to Scripture here to back me up on the sola Scriptura issue.
**I have appealed ONLY to Scripture **here to back me up on the sola Scriptura issue.

How Protestant of you. No, it is very Catholic to use Holy Writ for authoritative reasoning.

I have had more than a few posts stating the CC’s superlative use of Writ to come to Truth, even Tradition, and tradition.

 

[Gorgias]

Hey, I submit to the pope , when he speaks or even does “the Truth”.

Yeah, but if you’re the arbiter of “when he speaks or does the Truth”, then you’re not submitting to him… but rather, just pointing out when you and he happen to be walking in the same direction. At all other times, you’re submitting to your will alone.

 

[PRmerger]

“Sola Scriptura,” “Sola Fide,” “Sola Christos” is Scriptures, PRMerger.

The first two, ironically, are NOT FOUND in a single page of Scripture.

Re: the last one–very Catholic, that.

*Incidentally, regarding Faith Alone…the only place these 2 words, “faith alone” are found together is…

wait for it…
wait for it…

when it is preceded by the words “NOT BY”.

See James 2:24, taz.

 

[benhur]

Well, that reminds me of a quote: “When I submit only when I agree, then the one to whom I submit really is ME.”

Did you not know, “Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?”
John 10:34.

**Your clever statement suggests a misunderstanding of being made in His image,even free will, conscience and ability to "have the mind of Christ **

 

[benhur]

Yeah, but if you’re the arbiter of “when he speaks or does the Truth”, then you’re not submitting to him… but rather, just pointing out when you and he happen to be walking in the same direction. At all other times, you’re submitting to your will alone.

Here was my earlier reply, "

Did you not know, “Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?”
John 10:34.

Your clever statement suggests a misunderstanding of being made in His image,even free will, conscience and ability to "have the mind of Christ

 

[PRmerger]

Did you not know, “Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?”
John 10:34.

This is, by far, the scariest example of misinterpreting Scripture I have seen.

No, ben. Just no.

Jesus was certainly not giving you permission to make yourself the only one to whom you submit.

“When I submit only when I agree, then the one to whom I submit really is me.”

 

[benhur]

• It is YOU who deny the authority of Oral Tradition.

Which incidentally relies on Writ.
I only deny CC Tradition and some of her traditions and accept many of them as well as others.

• It is YOU who deny the authority of a teaching Magisterium (yet apply it to yourself).

No, just your magisterium,and not others.

A magisterium is only possible and relies on Writ,again.

 

[benhur]

This is, by far, the scariest example of misinterpreting Scripture I have seen.

Understand , but only if one is in OT mode of priesthood/judges. That is scary to me.

Jesus was certainly not giving you permission to make yourself the only one to whom you submit.

That is your assertion of one who finally, miraculously has the million dollar submission to the Spirit, that " he submits to himself ‘’? Chapter and verse please .

But, in case you really mean we submit to the Spirit and Mind he has given us in new life, OK. Agreed. Then we are to "submit one to another "thereafter.

 

[benhur]

benhur Phantom proclamation God uses many things but Scripture is superlative

A “verse” found NOWHERE in Scripture!

I don’t think I exaggerate Paul’s letter to Timothy on the virtues of Writ.

Superlative = "of the highest quality or degree" per definition. Disagree ?

“Holy Writ is of the highest quality or degree”, per Augustine (well he wrote “superlative”).