C
Cinette
Guest
Do you mean to say that you really don’t know?Catholic is also not in the bible right? What’s the church that Christ founded according to Acts 20:28?
Read Church history - read the Church Fathers.
- Status
Read Church history - read the Church Fathers.
O
onenow1
Guest
Quote=OneNow1 Yes it is. It is in Matthew 28:19-20, “Go, therefore and make disciplesof all nations…teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you;Catholic is also not in the bible right? What’s the church that Christ founded according to Acts 20:28?
And behold, I am with you all days, even unto the consummation ofthe world.”
That is a statement of Universality, Katholicos, Catholicus, Catholic.It comes from the Greek word Katholikos, which was later Latinized into Catholicus.
“Christian is our name, and Catholic our surname. The one designates me, while the other makes me specific. Thus am I attested and set apart… When we are called Catholics it is by this appellation that our people are kept apart from any heretical name.”
Saint Pacian of Barcelona, Letter to Sympronian, 375 A.D…
2Question; The church that Christ founded is the one mentioned in Matt 28: 19-20.
Peace,OneNow1
M
mackbrislawn
Guest
As to teachings or sayings of Jesus not recorded in the Scriptures…well, that is a matter of opinion. How about the Sayings Gospel of Thomas? It records pages of sayings of Jesus that aren’t in the Scriptures. How about the Gospel of Peter? It was a gospel used in the early church
In regard to a person or church applying scripture incorrectly, how do we know when they are applying it incorrectly? Other than it disagrees with our opinion, of course.
J
justasking4
Guest
These so called “gospels” were never real contenders as the real Gospels, For one they lack apostolic authority and are written after all the apostles died.
The same methods we employ in other disciplines. We look at context, comparison with other passages and word meanings. These and other methods can help us to determine which application is correct.
M
mackbrislawn
Guest
I like guanaphore’s point here. A written text is not self-interpreting. It requires a human being to decide what it says.
How can scripture be the final court of appeal when two disagreeing parties appeal to the same court? When that court of appeal is the very basis of their disagreement? Scripture cannot settle the argument, because it is scripture itself they are arguing over.
Let’s suppose it is true that scripture is the only infallible, inerrant source of God’s truth we have. But in that case, what good does it do when the readers and interpreters of it are not infallible?
P
PerryJ
Guest
I believe I showed you a verse that did not exist in the original Bible yesterday. There are more. You refuse to accept historical facts that prove you are missing books. The NT has more variants in it then words. I am not talking about misspelling etc. I am talking about words changed from the original. This is again based upon Protestant exegesis. So how do you go about looking at context, comparison etc.
We have a Bible approved by our Church as it defined the Bible. We have a faith based upon the teachings of the Church guided by the Holy Spirit. You have a Bible that is not approved. That has tens of thousands of variants from the originals. Of course has a bit of guess work as we do not have any originals. Yet you do exegesis on this book without understanding any of it.
Your whole faith is based upon a book that I am not sure you understand how it was created or currently exists.
J
justasking4
Guest
.
There are a number of these kinds of things in different manuscripts. The ending in Mark would be one such case.
If you are referring to the DC’s i think not.
These sounds like an argument from the heritic Bart Ehrlman who makes the same claims. This issue is to complex to go into here. Needless to say it does not affect doctrines.
If i’m not mistaken Catholic scholars in this field study the same manuscripts as Protestant Scholars. Secondly i have not read any Catholic scholarly works denouncing the major translations used by Protestants. Have you?
i do know quite a bit about this issue.
R
RisenAgain
Guest
Please brother do not be offended at me - for I agree with you on almost every post you post - however - here I think that you have built a faulty argument against our Protestant brethren.
In my morning Bible devotion, today I read Hebrews chapter 4, and around verse twelve it says that “the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.”
I only wish to say this - for I am myself Catholic and do not wish to be divisive: But God uses his sacred word to communicate to us the truth about many things - even our own condition. The word can speak to our heart and soul. Can it not therefore speak to a doctrinal issue that would be essential to the Catholic faith? Did not the holy church fathers of old appeal to the testimony of Sacred Scripture in order to dispute the false teachings of heretics? Are we not to also appeal to Sacred Scripture as well - even as it is the word of God - able to be the discerner of the thoughts and intents of the hearts of those who would speak falsehood?
No the Scriptures cannot speak audibly - but from a demonstration of the Spirit’s testimony therefrom - can the truth not be established? This then - with all due respect - is all that our Protestant brother wishes to communicate to us - as he uses these terms -“the highest court of appeal.”
For the court is not the people - it is the place where the people come to settle disputes among themselves. Should we not allow that the Sacred Scriptures are just that - even as they were to the holy church fathers as they established the deity of our Lord and other such doctrinal truths essential to the Catholic faith?
Please do not be offended - but I think we should be slow to critique ALL that our Protestant brethren post; but be open minded and try to show the validity of their respective positions. Let’s find what we have in common with them first - and then we shall reveal to them the bridge that they may travel for the rest of the truth. We need not shut them down entirely as if they have no truth - this is not the case! Many Protestants can and are teaching us Catholics many things about the grace of God daily - even on this very forum - I am not the least ashamed to be numbered in this category - are you?
M
mackbrislawn
Guest
Well, you just can’t win. Upon request, one provides teachings of Jesus that are not in scripture, but they are then rejected as teachings of Jesus because they are not in scripture!
Of course they lack apostolic authority, because they are not canonical. But non-canonical sources were specifically what were asked for. A merry-go-round.
Anyway, even though the teachings themselves were written after the apostles had died, doesn’t mean that they couldn’t have been transmitted orally into the post-apostolic period. Undoubtedly many of the sayings are spurious, but how do we know that some of them are not?
In regards to the above described method, it is very good. But shouldn’t we think that the other party uses that method as well, to arrive at their differing opinions?
P
PerryJ
Guest
So why do you refute the DCs when they are historically proven that they should be in the Bible? The pretense that Jerome used has been proven wrong. It has been proven why Luther renounced these books and it was to save face.
The issue is not to complex as your faith is based on the presupposition that the Bible you hold in your hand is the inspired word of God. That it is not manipulated by people or errors.
You do not want to go into it because it shows that you can not possibly make the Bible the sole rule of faith. SS provides no authority. As the Bible has these issue with it this amplifies your problem. You have a Bible that is not original, has additions subtractions and errors in it and yet you use it as your sole rule of faith. This adds to the problem you have as SS does not define what the Bible books should be contained or what verses it should have in it. Or even how they were originally defined. You may or may not have the true words of Peter; yet, you read the Bible one verse at a time and try to perform exegsis against Catholics. When you know that you may not have the original words of the bible in your hand. .
Why do we not face this dilema? Because our faith uses both oral traditions and the Bible. Our teachings are protected by the Holy Spirit. Lastly, our Church with the Holy Spirit canonnized our Bible. You have no such authority. SS is based upon the idea that you have the words that Peter recited in your very hands.
Bart Erhlman did make these claims; however, there are other scientific people that make these claims. If you have studied this then you know several Protestants scriptural exegsis believe the Bible contains many changes.
Catholics do not denounce Bibles they approve Bibles. Are your Bibles approved by the Catholic faith?
J
justasking4
Guest
I must be dense. What teachings of Jesus not in Scripture are you referring to?
I would think even your leaders would reject these as a viable source for any true sayings of Christ. If not, then these sayings should be in your Bible since they would be Scripture.
Something written 100-150 years after the events would be a problem.
Yes. That’s why its good to discuss these things.
J
justasking4
Guest
How have people like Erhlman affect your confidence in your Bible? Remember the same arguments he makes against Protestant Bibles applies to yours.
Ps- i would strongly, strongly advise anyone who does not understand the issues of textual criticism to stay away from people like Erhlman. i can think of a couple people who have lost their faith because of him. He is also used by the enemies of the faith to attack Christianity.
M
mackbrislawn
Guest
What teachings of Jesus? The teachings of Jesus in the Gospel of Thomas.
My leaders? I have not said I had any leaders. Except logic. I don’t here appeal to any other authority.
No, I don’t know of any contemporary religious leaders who would go to the Gospel of Thomas for viable sayings of Jesus. Although that is not the point. You see, the way justasking4 crafts the question makes it impossible to comply with it–he asks for non-scriptural sayings of Jesus and when presented with some, denies they are sayings of Jesus because they are non-scriptural. But where else are we to turn, for non-scriptural teachings of Jesus, except outside of scripture? Hence, the merry-go-round.
True, it is good to discuss these things. And we are all in this together.
J
justasking4
Guest
Does the Catholic church offically regard these as authentic teaching of Jesus?
M
mackbrislawn
Guest
I believe this question is self-answering. According to the Catholic church, the church itself determined the canon, and the canon the Catholic church determined does not include the Gospel of Thomas. If it were included, we would not have brought it up as a source of non-scriptural teachings of Jesus!
J
justasking4
Guest
So are you saying that the Catholic church does not acknowledge these sayings in Thomas as coming from the lips of Jesus?
C
Cinette
Guest
**TO Ridler2012 -
You say Catholic is not in the Bible - neither is Trinity. Did you not see my post above to Crusador? I shall copy that last part for you:
the Catholic Church was first mentioned towards the end of the first century. It was St Ignatius of Antioch (35-107AD) in a letter to the Snyrnaeans Chap 8 “wherever the Bishop appears there let the people be, as wherever Jesus Christ is there is the Catholic Church.” I think it was in the year 95. Perhaps someone on this forum knows the exact year.
**
R
RisenAgain
Guest
Amen! - Catholic simply means “universal” - so what is the big deal to Protestants?**TO Ridler2012 -
You say Catholic is not in the Bible - neither is Trinity. Did you not see my post above to Crusador? I shall copy that last part for you:
the Catholic Church was first mentioned towards the end of the first century. It was St Ignatius of Antioch (35-107AD) in a letter to the Snyrnaeans Chap 8 “wherever the Bishop appears there let the people be, as wherever Jesus Christ is there is the Catholic Church.”
And it is true that the Bible teaches that the first followers of Christ were called Christians - so what is the big deal to us Catholics?
Titles are not to be argued over - lest we should eclipse the glory of Christ Jesus. It is Christ that died- yea, that is risen again and is seated at the right hand of God to make intercession for us.
Look to Christ - and bicker not among yourselves over titles of men!
Praise the Lord Jesus Christ!
C
Cinette
Guest
**I think you have missed the point entirely! There is no bickering about titles at all.
The reason for the topic is to discuss Protestantism and to ask them to show us their validation from the Bible.
Jesus said
“Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”.
“I will be with you always, until the end of the age”.
“The Spirit will come and lead you into all truth”.
“The pillar and foundation of truth is the Church”.
(These are promises made by Jesus and we believe that he never failed to keep his promise)
1500 years later Luther protested against abuses in the Church and instead of resolving these matters within the Church he left and started his own Church (the first Protestant church). Then there were Calvin, Zwingly, Wesley, and so on and on and on.
Today we see more than 40 000 denominations in the US alone – all Bible based but all preaching different interpretations. Whenever there are disagreements there is a split and one party goes off and plants another church. We see these mega churches springing up and they are “franchises”!! They do not have sacraments except for Anglicans and Lutherans. The Orthodox do but then the only thing that separates them from us is that they do not accept the Pope. Even the Anglicans and Lutherans have different beliefs regarding the Eucharist for example – different beliefs within the same church, the same parish.
Jesus said that there would be one flock and one shepherd. We feel that there should be unity among Christians and that we should look at ecumenism and work towards reconciliation.
So do understand that the purpose of these debates is to learn, share and come to an appreciation and understanding of each other’s beliefs.
So you are wrong in thinking that this platform is about bickering. Protestants are our “separated” brothers and sisters. We embrace them and want to draw them to us. It is the Holy Spirit’s job to convert. We just share and try to come closer together.
We are asking them to prove their theory of Sola Scriptura to us and to themselves also**! Where did Luther base his Sola Scriptura statement? If I were Protestant I think I would want some answers
The reason for the topic is to discuss Protestantism and to ask them to show us their validation from the Bible.
Jesus said
“Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”.
“I will be with you always, until the end of the age”.
“The Spirit will come and lead you into all truth”.
“The pillar and foundation of truth is the Church”.
(These are promises made by Jesus and we believe that he never failed to keep his promise)
1500 years later Luther protested against abuses in the Church and instead of resolving these matters within the Church he left and started his own Church (the first Protestant church). Then there were Calvin, Zwingly, Wesley, and so on and on and on.
Today we see more than 40 000 denominations in the US alone – all Bible based but all preaching different interpretations. Whenever there are disagreements there is a split and one party goes off and plants another church. We see these mega churches springing up and they are “franchises”!! They do not have sacraments except for Anglicans and Lutherans. The Orthodox do but then the only thing that separates them from us is that they do not accept the Pope. Even the Anglicans and Lutherans have different beliefs regarding the Eucharist for example – different beliefs within the same church, the same parish.
Jesus said that there would be one flock and one shepherd. We feel that there should be unity among Christians and that we should look at ecumenism and work towards reconciliation.
So do understand that the purpose of these debates is to learn, share and come to an appreciation and understanding of each other’s beliefs.
So you are wrong in thinking that this platform is about bickering. Protestants are our “separated” brothers and sisters. We embrace them and want to draw them to us. It is the Holy Spirit’s job to convert. We just share and try to come closer together.
We are asking them to prove their theory of Sola Scriptura to us and to themselves also**! Where did Luther base his Sola Scriptura statement? If I were Protestant I think I would want some answers
R
RisenAgain
Guest
Absolutely! I am in agreement with that.**Do understand that the purpose of these debates is to learn, share and come to an appreciation and understanding of each other’s beliefs.
We are asking them to prove their theory of Sola Scriptura to us and to themselves also**! Where did Luther base his Sola Scriptura statement? If I were Protestant I think I would want some answers
I know what this thread is about. I have read all the posts.
And I am Catholic - yes - but I am more concerned with being honest and consistent, then I am with sounding smart.
It seems that we wish to know what our Protestant brethren truly believe, but before they even tell us - we tell them that they are wrong. We have our minds already made up - and yet we have the nerve to turn around and scorn them for not being “open-minded.” This is quite the double standard - no?
We as Catholics have to be more consistent with our own theology before we can accuse our Protestant brethren that their theology is inconsistent. Search your Catholic faith to the uttermost before you begin to critique others. And when you ask a sincere question about what another brother believes - listen to him, and try to see where he is coming from. This is the true Catholic spirit.
I am sorry to say this, but my Catholic brethren on this forum have been anything BUT consistent - including myself; and this really needs to change.
For instance - I noticed this comment from a Protestant brother - and I also noticed that there was not a single Catholic brother (or sister) of ours, including me - that could adequately answer it:
We tell Protestants that they cannot know what is, and what is not Sacred Scripture without the Catholic Church right? So the Protestant has an unsolvable dilemma trying to figure out what constitutes Scripture - without an infallible teaching magisterium.
So far so logical . . . right?
But then, the question becomes - How can they, and how can we for that matter, know what constitutes the Church? The Watchtower Society, the Mormons, and the Holy Roman Catholic Church have the same claim. This creates a huge dilemma for us both - and puts us in the same boat as them.
We have created a double standard!
If we answer - Well we have three witnesses; One is sacred Scripture . . . they can immediately answer:
“Well how do you know what constitutes sacred Scripture without first knowing what constitutes the Church, for the Church defines Scripture. By using Scripture for one of your sources that teaches you what constitutes the Church, you only prove that one can actually know what is Scripture apart from the Church!”
If we answer - Well we have sacred Tradition . . . they can immediately answer:
“How do you know what constitutes sacred Tradition without first knowing what constitutes the Church, for it is the Church that defines Tradition. By going to Tradition - one presupposes that they already know what constitutes the Church, for Tradition comes from the Church!”
If we answer - Well we have history . . . they can immediately answer:
“History according to who? History also must be interpreted. Should we take the Protestant perspective of history - the Orthodox perspective - or the Jewish? And if we look to history - how do we even know that the sources that we look to are reliable sources? Doesn’t the Church have to tell us which historical sources are acceptable? But if we are still trying to figure out what constitutes the Church - then we have no Church to tell us!”
You see- We Catholics think we have it all figured out - but we do not. We are masters at setting double standards. This is why, I suspect, we see a high level of anger coming from our fellow Catholics. We are frustrated and do not even know why.
Maybe we ought to stop pretending that we know it all, and begin to open our minds a little, and at least hear our Protestant brethren out. I am saying - let them speak for themselves; let us listen. Let us think. Let us be slow to answer - lest we find ourselves digging our *own *theology into a pit laden with double standards, logical fallacies, and ad hominem methodologies.
If we expect our Protestant brethren to scrutinize their theology and examine it with a critical eye - ought not we to do the same before accusing the beloved, and blood-bought children of our Heavenly Father?
- Status