Sola Scriptura--now I get

[kujo313]

JSmitty2005:

This is a false dichotomoy. You can’t have one without the other. The first Christians didn’t seem to have a problem being called “Catholic” as this can be traced back to Anno Domini 107.

Please, kujo, would you define “religion” for me?

Religion is a lifestyle.

Your relationship with God should be #1 in your life.

We have this sinful nature that we all are born with. God gave Adam free will and he fell. He tells all of us, through the Law and the prophets, that a blood sacrifice is needed for the atonement of our sins.
God chose a first-born lamb, without spot or wrinkle, to be a sacrifice for our sins. The blood of the lamb had to be poured on the altar. When it was done right, God accepted the sacrifice and our sins was forgiven.
God required all of that for a reason.
He sacrificed His Lamb once and for all for the forgiveness of our sins. Jesus IS that Lamb! His blood was poured on the earth so now the whole earth is our altar.
Before, God accepted the sin offering and forgave us. Now, WE must accept God’s “Offering” for forgiveness of our sins.
Once and for all.

True “religion” is living in the victory that Christ won over the sins of the world. It’s a lifestyle, an “everyday” thing.

1 Peter 1:17-21
1 Peter 2:4-9

I do not want to wander from that path. I don’t want any distractions.

I say that many “protestant” faiths have their root in Scripture, in the Bible, and, yes, in the Catholic religion.
However, in the years after the apostles, there have been “distractions”. People in the “church” took their eyes off the prize, the finish line, and began to examine people other than Jesus.
I see that as not good!
The “traditions” brought up from the Old Testament dont really tell what to do with the vessel that births the Messiah.

Also, when it comes to “saints”.
Eaton’s Bible Dictionary describes a “saint” as:

one separated from the world and consecrated to God; one holy by profession and by covenant; a believer in Christ (Psalms 16:3; Romans 1:7; 8:27; Phil 1:1; Hebrews 6:10).
This word is also used of the holy dead (Matthew 27:52; Revelation 18:24). It was not used as a distinctive title of the apostles and evangelists and of a “spiritual nobility” till the fourth century. In that sense it is not a scriptural title.

But… the Catholic church has it’s own defination and makes stumbling blocks.

catholicism.about.com/cs/saints/a/becomesaint04.htm

There are probably more, but I’d rather chat about our similiarities than our differences.

 

[kujo313]

MrS:

I’ll chip in for a Catechism if I though he would read it.

Sure, I’ll read it. I have some Catholic books here in my library and they don’t look good.
Jesus is the One Mediator between God and man. I don’t get why anybody would want to try to analyze anything else outside that box.
What about Mary? What about Joseph? What happened to the apostles that didn’t write anything? What did God do on the 8th day? Did Adam have a belly button?

All these questions are not necessary. Just focus on God through Jesus. Learn from Him (some say “learn of Me”).

Tell me what difference does it make to our salvation if Mary remained a virgin or not? Wether she was or not, we still need to accept and follow Jesus.
Wether Mary or the saints intercede for us or not should not matter. We should concentrate on obeying God’s Word.

 

[St.Eric]

kujo313:

Sure, I’ll read it. I have some Catholic books here in my library and they don’t look good.
Jesus is the One Mediator between God and man. I don’t get why anybody would want to try to analyze anything else outside that box.
What about Mary? What about Joseph? What happened to the apostles that didn’t write anything? What did God do on the 8th day? Did Adam have a belly button?

All these questions are not necessary. Just focus on God through Jesus. Learn from Him (some say “learn of Me”).

Tell me what difference does it make to our salvation if Mary remained a virgin or not? Wether she was or not, we still need to accept and follow Jesus.
Wether Mary or the saints intercede for us or not should not matter. We should concentrate on obeying God’s Word.

Get it through your head. Jesus is our Lord and Savior. I think you should examine yourself- I think you are more obsessed with Mary than any Catholics I know. And…if you obeyed God’s word you would be a Catholic- in the one true fold- One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic, just like the Father and Son are One.

 

[a_clare]

“Stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter.” 2 Thess. 2:15

Here Paul is telling us to follow both written teachings (what we now call the Bible) and traditions conveyed by word of mouth. These oral traditions have been preserved and handed down in the dogmatic Traditions of the Catholic Church.

 

[montanaman]

kujo313:

Sure, I’ll read it. I have some Catholic books here in my library and they don’t look good.
Jesus is the One Mediator between God and man. I don’t get why anybody would want to try to analyze anything else outside that box.
What about Mary? What about Joseph? What happened to the apostles that didn’t write anything? What did God do on the 8th day? Did Adam have a belly button?

All these questions are not necessary. Just focus on God through Jesus. Learn from Him (some say “learn of Me”).

Tell me what difference does it make to our salvation if Mary remained a virgin or not? Wether she was or not, we still need to accept and follow Jesus.
Wether Mary or the saints intercede for us or not should not matter. We should concentrate on obeying God’s Word.

That’s just pure anti-intellectualism. I am perpetually stunned at how much energy Protestants put into ignoring what’s true. I’m not talking about disagreement, but the way they actively avoid trying to understand what else might be true out there. It’s pure FANTASY to think a that a relationship with Christ somehow subordinates all other truth.

Get it through your head, people–what’s true is of God. When you start running from truth you, in your “infallible” wisdom, seek to prioritize and subordinate truth, your abilty to see ANY truth atrophies.

 

[kujo313]

“Stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter.” 2 Thess. 2:15

Here Paul is telling us to follow both written teachings (what we now call the Bible) and traditions conveyed by word of mouth. These oral traditions have been preserved and handed down in the dogmatic Traditions of the Catholic Church.

No, not ALL traditions. Some was made up when it was too late to ask the disciples.

 

[kujo313]

montanaman:

That’s just pure anti-intellectualism. I am perpetually stunned at how much energy Protestants put into ignoring what’s true. I’m not talking about disagreement, but the way they actively avoid trying to understand what else might be true out there. It’s pure FANTASY to think a that a relationship with Christ somehow subordinates all other truth.

Get it through your head, people–what’s true is of God. When you start running from truth you, in your “infallible” wisdom, seek to prioritize and subordinate truth, your abilty to see ANY truth atrophies.

So you’re saying that the Catholic church is 100% correct and infallible?
You’re gonna base it on Peter being “the rock”. Must I remind you that Peter later denied our Lord THREE TIMES? Must I remind you, also, that Peter was rebuked by Paul?
With that, exactly WHEN did Peter become “infallible”. According to “tradition”, Peter chose to be crucified upside-down because he said he was not worthy enough to die like our Lord.

That’s one of the problems. Like a good sprinter, I’m keeping my eye on the finish line. You want to stop and look at the scenery on the way. Then, you say that I’m wrong.

 

[Church_Militant]

Hey Kujo!

What? No answer to post 964?

I showed from the Word of God that your statement about religion is unscriptural. Can you explain that?

Originally Posted by kujo313

“Christian” is a relationship with God. “Catholic” is a religion, man made. I asked you then to prove this, but you seem to have missed it or ignored it.

I said:

Can you verify that statement with facts? I doubt you can but I urge

you to make the best possible attempt. For instance, what man, and when? (I warn you now that you WILL lose this point in our discussion, so be prepared.You seem to be trying to tell us that things like the fact that every human being has a guardian angel is not important, not that the fact that the saints in heaven are aware and active in intercession for us, or that the early church wrote that they believed different things than you do are not important, yet they supported their teachings with scripture and in fact were being taught what they believed by the apostles themselves as the New Testament was being written. Where do you suppose all the information about Jesus’ childhood came from Kujo? That was 30 years before any of the apostles even came along! One word…Mary. So it seems that Our Lady did supply parts of the Gospels!

As for that crack about the Catholic Church setting up stumbling blocks to sainthood, that is ridiculous. If you took the time to read some of the Catholic books that you say you have you then maybe you wouldn’t make silly remarks like that and then post a link to that silly “about” article that is not current or accurate. Canonization is actually nothing more than the church’s official and public acknowledgement (after a careful investigation!) of a person’s holy life. They are obviously not the only saints, but are GREAT examples for the rest of us to follow. After all even St. Paul told us to follow those who follow the Lord faithfully. That’s in the New Testament.

Truth Kujo, it’s all about TRUTH, not what some preacher tells you or about what you think some passage of scripture might mean. It’s all about real facts and verifiable teachings that the Bible supports and that have been held by the New Testament church for 2,000 years.
Pax tecum,

 

[Church_Militant]

kujo313:

So you’re saying that the Catholic church is 100% correct and infallible?
You’re gonna base it on Peter being “the rock”. Must I remind you that Peter later denied our Lord THREE TIMES? Must I remind you, also, that Peter was rebuked by Paul?
With that, exactly WHEN did Peter become “infallible”. According to “tradition”, Peter chose to be crucified upside-down because he said he was not worthy enough to die like our Lord.

What you are citing is “peccability” not infallibility.

So Jesus can’t pick who He pleases to build His church upon huh? That’s pretty audacious of ya to tell Our Lord His business.

Matthew 16:18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

Don’t you think that Our Lord knew what Peter was gonna do…hey ALL the apostles took off when Jesus got busted! Peter at least had the guts to draw his blade and strike out in defense of the Lord, so I wouldn’t get too down on the man if I was you. So Paul rebuked him…so what! Means nothing. Paul flat out lied to the Jewish council in one case when he told then that he was on trial for the resurrection of the dead, when in fact he was busted for preaching Jesus.

All of the apostles were just men, but when they teach on matters of faith and morals (as the magisterium) they speak with the promised guidance of the Holy Spirit. Or else the promise of Christ means nothing…
Pax tecum,

 

[Mickey]

Acts 5:14-15

And more than ever believers were added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women,
so that they even carried out the sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and pallets, that as Peter came by at least his shadow might fall on some of them.

 

[montanaman]

kujo313:

So you’re saying that the Catholic church is 100% correct and infallible?
You’re gonna base it on Peter being “the rock”. Must I remind you that Peter later denied our Lord THREE TIMES? Must I remind you, also, that Peter was rebuked by Paul?
With that, exactly WHEN did Peter become “infallible”. According to “tradition”, Peter chose to be crucified upside-down because he said he was not worthy enough to die like our Lord.

That’s one of the problems. Like a good sprinter, I’m keeping my eye on the finish line. You want to stop and look at the scenery on the way. Then, you say that I’m wrong.

#1, educate yourself. Find out what we mean by “infallibility.” Since you can’t comprehend it when we tell you here, maybe you’ll gave better luck obtaining the knowledge through your own effort.

#2, the point was my observation that you, and a great many of your compadres, are anti-rational, anti-intellectual, anti-THINKING. With statements like this:

All these questions are not necessary.

your fear and hostility to truth is shown.

Let me be very clear–I couldn’t care less that you disagree with the Church or Catholicism. I think a healthy, principled argument against the Church is to be rejoiced because at least the people making such arguments stand on a common ground with us. You, and people like you, however, mangle scripture by reading things into the Bible like this poisonous reductionism (i.e. “What’s the least I have to know or believe to be saved?”). Because you’ve sliced down what you think is “important,” your intellect literally atrophies, leading you into all kinds of errors. Not the least of these errors is your entire understanding of Catholicism. But, see, you don’t care–you think you’ve got the soundbite, the tiny little fraction necessary to receive salvation. So why should you care that your understanding of Catholicism is seriously deficient? After all, it’s not “important.”

 

[JSmitty2005]

kujo313:

Tell me what difference does it make to our salvation if Mary remained a virgin or not?

Because it fulfilled a prophecy.

“And He brought me back to the way of the gate of the outward sanctuary, which looked towards the east: and it was shut. And the Lord said to me: This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it: because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it, and it shall be shut.”
[Ez. 44: 1-2]

The Church Fathers understood this gate to be the Ever-Virgin Mary:

“Today let Ezechiel, renowned for his visions, rejoice because his prophecy is in effect fulfilled. In Babylon he saw a closed gate and said: Sealed up let it be, because by it the Lord will enter in. Mary is that closed gate. By it, Christ came into the world, but He opened it not. Let disputations be silent.”
[St. Ephrem of Syria + 373, Hymn XV On the Blessed Virgin]

catholictradition.org/Mary/council-ephesus.htm

The mechanism by which this occured is nothing short of miraculous, but that’s nothing new. Our Lord passed through the door in the upper room without opening it also.

 

[JSmitty2005]

kujo313:

Tell me what difference does it make to our salvation if Mary remained a virgin or not?

See also:

ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ460.HTM

 

[wcknight]

Kujo would do well to read one of the books about very prominent protestant Biblical scholars who in their research discovered that it is the Catholic Church who follows scriptures more closely than any other Christian denomination.

The title of these books is “Surprised by the Truth” . There are at least 2 or 3 of them, and they may answer some of your more obscure questions.

Kujo overlooks the fact that the Catholic Church NEVER proclaims any doctrine that contradicts scriptures. Plus the Church has always had hundreds if not thousnads of Bibilical scholars who research and study scriptures far more extensively than any one Church or one minister. They do this for a living 24/7.

The huge fallacy of Protestants is that they claim that the Holy Spirit guides each of them whenever they read scriptures and somehow miraculously makes each of their own interpretations correct. IF that were true, then each and every protestant minister and member would come up the the SAME IDENITCAL interpretation for each and every passage.

BUT we all know that there are literally thousands of different interpretations because every time one minister disagrees with another, they simply go down the street and start their own new congregation. There are literally 10,000 different congregation, each with their own twist on scriptures.

On the the other hand, the Holy Spirit DOES guide the Catholic Church, we have ONE faith and ONE approved interpretation of scriptures. In our Cathecism, every single doctrine is backed up by the scriptural statement that supports it. There is only one interpretation for our doctrines, and that is the one approved by our Church.

It is foolish to think that any one person, no matter how astute or how scholarly, can compete with the thousands of Catholic Bibilical scholars, who make a living of interpreting scriptures. When the Church declares that something is true, you can bet your bottom dollar that it is.

It is not the Pope alone who has determined this, but the Pope with support from all the Bishops and Cardinals, as well as the army of Biblical scholars.

Not only do we have our army of scholars, Heaven itself has proved on occasion to step in first hand to settle any disputes. IF one reads about the controversy about the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, one will find that Mary herself appeared at Lourdes, to dramatically settle the issue once and for all.

When anyone argues against the doctrines of the Chruch, I just have to laugh. Just ask your self, do you have access to hundreds of Biblical scholars ? do you debate these things day and night ? Do you have access to the original Greek, Latin, or Hebrew manuscripts ? Do you know the subtleties of any of these languages ?

IF all you can say is I read it in MY KING JAMES version (which by the way is MISSING several important books), then I just have to smile. IF you want to discover the Truth, at least start by reading a Bible with ALL the books intact.

It’s like trying to learn about American history, with all the chapters taken out about the Civil War, WWII and the civil Rights movement taken out. You have a very distorted view of reality, one doctored in the middle ages.

 

[jim1130]

kujo313:

So you’re saying that the Catholic church is 100% correct and infallible?
You’re gonna base it on Peter being “the rock”. Must I remind you that Peter later denied our Lord THREE TIMES? Must I remind you, also, that Peter was rebuked by Paul?
With that, exactly WHEN did Peter become “infallible”. According to “tradition”, Peter chose to be crucified upside-down because he said he was not worthy enough to die like our Lord.

That’s one of the problems. Like a good sprinter, I’m keeping my eye on the finish line. You want to stop and look at the scenery on the way. Then, you say that I’m wrong.

Peace.

Was every person chosen by God perfect (think King David)? Maybe it is because of the imperfections and the humility that accompanies the imperfections that makes these prophets, Apostles, martyrs, etc. great. Maybe it is because of Christ’s love that all were welcome back no matter what their sins.

You really like to beat up on St. Peter.

Peace.

 

[St.Eric]

montanaman:

Let me be very clear–I couldn’t care less that you disagree with the Church or Catholicism. I think a healthy, principled argument against the Church is to be rejoiced because at least the people making such arguments stand on a common ground with us. You, and people like you, however, mangle scripture by reading things into the Bible like this poisonous reductionism (i.e. “What’s the least I have to know or believe to be saved?”). Because you’ve sliced down what you think is “important,” your intellect literally atrophies, leading you into all kinds of errors. Not the least of these errors is your entire understanding of Catholicism. But, see, you don’t care–you think you’ve got the soundbite, the tiny little fraction necessary to receive salvation. So why should you care that your understanding of Catholicism is seriously deficient? After all, it’s not “important.”

MM,

That is a good poinit. I haven’t thought about it in those terms. Folks like Kujo basically are saying- “what is the minimum I have to do to be ‘saved’.” You know, that kind of work ethic does not go very far. In fact, it seems downright opposed to Christ’s teachings- take up your cross, give up what you have, obey all of the commandments, eat my flesh, drink my blood, be baptised, etc. etc…There IS more to it than saying a “sinners prayer” and viola- now I am saved. “Work out your salvation with fear and trembling.”!!!

 

[St.Eric]

kujo313:

So you’re saying that the Catholic church is 100% correct and infallible?
You’re gonna base it on Peter being “the rock”. Must I remind you that Peter later denied our Lord THREE TIMES? Must I remind you, also, that Peter was rebuked by Paul?
With that, exactly WHEN did Peter become “infallible”. According to “tradition”, Peter chose to be crucified upside-down because he said he was not worthy enough to die like our Lord.

That’s one of the problems. Like a good sprinter, I’m keeping my eye on the finish line. You want to stop and look at the scenery on the way. Then, you say that I’m wrong.

As for Peter being foolish and weak:

1 Corinthians 1:26-31

26Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. 27But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, 29so that no one may boast before him. 30It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. 31Therefore, as it is written: “Let him who boasts boast in the Lord.”[d]

 

[montanaman]

St.Eric:

MM,

That is a good poinit. I haven’t thought about it in those terms. Folks like Kujo basically are saying- “what is the minimum I have to do to be ‘saved’.” You know, that kind of work ethic does not go very far. In fact, it seems downright opposed to Christ’s teachings- take up your cross, give up what you have, obey all of the commandments, eat my flesh, drink my blood, be baptised, etc. etc…There IS more to it than saying a “sinners prayer” and viola- now I am saved. “Work out your salvation with fear and trembling.”!!!

Yeah, that’s part of what irks me. But the other, bigger part is this disinterest in pursuing truth wherever it leads as long as you’re able. We’re not all called to be theologians and philosophers, but we who bear the mantle “Christian” follow Christ, the “way, the TRUTH and the life.” Maybe I’ve always been naive, but I’ve just assumed that Christians are more interested in, or gaurantors of, truth. So, when I run across these minimalists, these reductionists, saying “That might be true, or it might not,” I want to tie them off to the back of my truck and drive them around town at about 25 miles an hour until they scream “Mercy, I want the truth!”

Again–I don’t care if you disagree. But at least take a stand. This limp-wristed minimalism is weak and shameful for so-called Christians. If truth is irrelevant to you on some levels, it’s irrelevant to you on all levels.

 

[kujo313]

I’ll go first and you can then show us where this passage of God’s word is wrong, ok?

James 1:26 And if any man think himself to be religious, not bridling his tongue, but deceiving his own heart, this man’s religion is vain. 27 Religion clean and undefiled before God and the Father, is this: to visit the fatherless and widows in their tribulation: and to keep one’s self unspotted from this world.

Not wrong at all. “Unspotted” is an interesting word. Too much of the Catholic “Mary” is like the goddess Isis. There are too many simularities.
The true Mary knew that she, herself, needed a Savior.

Luke 1:46-47
And Mary said:“My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior.” (NIV)
God my Savior. (NASB)
Savior God. (The Message)
my Savior. (Amplified)
my Savior (NLT)
my Saviour. (KJV)
my Savior (ESV)
(and on and on. tired of clipping and pasting)
Mary knew the Scriptures by quoting from the Old Testament when she was with her cousin, Elizabeth.

Jesus refused to exault Mary. He, instead, exaulted everybody who hears the word of God and obeys it.
He didn’t say, “Usher in this blessed woman.” Rather, He replied that anyone who obeys God’ s Word is equal with Mary.
Jesus is again robbed of glory and honor that He alone deserves. Rather than recognizing Him as the only sinless One, Catholicism contradicts Scripture and insists that Mary was also sinless.
“For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;” Romans 3:23

“For he hath made him (Jesus) to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” 2 Corinthians 5:21
Romans 5: 17 For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.)

Man-made “traditions” gave a “sinless life” to another other than Jesus.
You are looking too far and too hard at somebody else besides Jesus.

 

[montanaman]

Kujo,

Please refer to the myriad Mary threads here, or any article in the Catholic.com library for explanations of our beliefs. Then come back with something a little more advanced than this entry-level anti-Catholicism.

While you’re at it, you might want to enlist in the armies of Protestants searching the apparently bottomless depths of scripture for the elusive proof-text for sola scriptura.