Sola Scriptura Silence

[Ferde_Rombola]

Exactly. Why should it?

The doctrine of sola scriptura should be found in Scripture because you preach it as doctrine. The doctrine is, all Christian doctrine must be explicit in Scripture. So there’s mistake #1.

Yes, the reformers were right. Sola Scriptura, and all of the solas, came about because of the reformers belief that the visible Church, at that time, was corrupt, and those who followed them believed that it remained corrupt. I agree with them.

Mistake #2. What you agree with is a non-sequiter. How does a corrupt visible Church lead to the doctrine of sola scriptura? The ex-Catholic hertics who rebelled against the Church could not accept the infallibility of the Church and the pope in matters of faith and morals, so they made Scripture infallible. That’s why they concocted the absurd doctrine of sola scriptura.

The reformers were aware that the words sola scriptura weren’t in the Scripture, but also, they were keenly aware that the scriptures were the only true repository of God’s revelation to man, and that they were the means God had ordained to lead sinners into the truth and to guide Christians in their daily lives.

Chapter and verse, please. The 16th Century heretics knew sola scriptura wasn’t in Scripture, but they invented it anyway. You admit it isn’t in Scripture then say it is. Mistake #3.

What you post here is nothing but the shameless proselytizing of a person thinking of converting to the True Faith. You have no argument. Just the same protestant lies that have led to the 34,000 sects polluting the Christian landscape.

Many scripture passages attest to that. Christ Himself, held all of the Jews to the teachings of Moses and the prophets—another name for the OT.

He did not! He said do what they SAY, not what they do. And Paul, your favorite Apostle, completely trashed the OT laws, didn’t he? Mistake #4.

Another argument you’ll hear is, the NT wasn’t canonized until long after the death of Christ, and the apostles. That is true, and the reformers knew that, they were CATHOLICS! They also knew that the writings of the NT were in circulation well before they were assembled as the NT.

Yes. And… They also knew, as you should, it was the Catholic Church which selected the books of the Canon and which gave them, and you, the Scriptures you are now attempting to teach us about. Do you see the humor there? I do. It’s hilarious!

But what is a pillar and foundation if not that which holds up the truth found in God’s written revelation.
I add ‘oral revelation’ to that and it precisely describes the Catholic Church who continues to rely on the Lord’s 2000 year old promises to send the Spirit to lead us to all truth and to be with us until the end of the world. He didn’t make those promises to Luther, did He? And He certainly didn’t make them to you. Did he?

Furthermore, you’ll hear that the apostles taught oral tradition,

and 2 Thess 2:15 is cited as proof of that.
It doesn’t take Paul to prove that. When Peter walked out the door on the day of Pentecost he didn’t have a book in his hand, did he? He PREACHED, didn’t he? And he and the rest continued to PREACH, didn’t they? And their successors PREACHED as well, didn’t they? Are you seriously going to deny the Apostles and their successors taught from oral tradition? I hope not. You’ve dug a deep enough hole for yourself as it is.

Anyone caring more about truth, than about some overused and faulty apologetic, would take the time to read the entire chapter and beyond.

Mistake #5. Picking and choosing, then faulty interpretation. Anyone caring about the truth of the Gospel message will study all of Scripture under the guidance of someone who is authorized to interpret it. Only the Catholic Church has the infallible authority to interpret Scripture. “Whatsoever you shall bind on earth will be bound in heaven. Whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Right out of the Scripture you worship. I have news for you, friend. Jesus is not a book. He is alive right this minute and it is He we worship. Not a book.

In so doing, one finds that Paul states, in writing,

the oral teachings he already delivered to the Thessalonians.
How does that negate the teaching from tradition? You’re reading things into it that aren’t there.

You and the entire protestant world overlook the fact only two Apostles wrote Gospels. The other two were written by men who got their information second hand. IOW, orally, from others. That’s called tradition! How did Paul get his information? Did he read Matthew and John? I don’t think so. I think it was told to him by the Lord and by Peter during the 15 days he spent with him. Mistake #6.

In v1, the oral teaching concerns the Coming of our Lord, and our gathering to Him

, and Paul reminds them that he had told that to them before in person v5. Regarding the holding to traditions in v15, one finds the other oral teaching already delivered in v 6, keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life. That’s a clearly written teaching throughout scripture.
You’re not saying anything here. Basically typing what you’ve read, which says nothing to support your argument.

With respect to the RCs oral tradition, the inference is that it somehow differs from that which was written by the apostles. That being the case, the burden of proof is upon the Church to substantiate that claim. But I’ve yet to have any Catholic provide a list of unwritten oral tradition, taught by any apostle. It can’t be done.
Where is the inference that it differs from what the Apostles taught? Does the Church say that or is it you making things up again? ALL Catholic doctrine and dogma has support in Scripture. The Catholic Church believes Sacred Scripture is the inerrant word of God and believed it long before the 16th Century. The Catholic Church brought Scripture from the First Century to the 16th Century when your heretic ancestors started chopping it up, revising the text and inventing new and unheard of doctrine AND TRADITIONS of their own.

I read this thing when you first posted it and ignored it as nothing but a protestant pep talk. It was nothing much then and it hasn’t changed.

Good luck in your search for the truth. And pray. A lot.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Howie01]

Ferde Rombola:

The doctrine of sola scriptura should be found in Scripture because you preach it as doctrine. The doctrine is, all Christian doctrine must be explicit in Scripture. So there’s mistake #1.

You know, the reformers were right in declaring the Scriptures the sole rule of faith and morals. I agree with them, and so do many, many others in spite of your loud protestation. (Seems everyone’s a protestant at heart, eh, Ferde?)
Ferde Rombola:

What you agree with is a non-sequiter.

Well, at least I can spell non sequitur.
Ferde Rombola:

How does a corrupt visible Church lead to the doctrine of sola scriptura?

If you think about it, Ferde, your question answers itself.
Ferde Rombola:

The ex-Catholic hertics who rebelled against the Church could not accept the infallibility of the Church and the pope in matters of faith and morals, so they made Scripture infallible.

Gee, Ferde, at that time, even the Church didn’t know it was infallible, that circular self-proclamation was a ways in the future.
Ferde Rombola:

Chapter and verse, please. The 16th Century heretics knew sola scriptura wasn’t in Scripture, but they invented it anyway. You admit it isn’t in Scripture then say it is.

Oh Ferde, read this, and when you finish that and come back, I’ll continue to link you to more reading.
Ferde Rombola:

What you post here is nothing but the shameless proselytizing of a person thinking of converting to the True Faith.

Spare me the shameful histrionics, Ferde, I was just answering his question.
Ferde Rombola:

He did not!

Sure he did, Ferde; if you read scripture every now and then you’d know that.
Ferde Rombola:

And Paul, your favorite Apostle, completely trashed the OT laws, didn’t he?

**Romans 7:12

So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.**Doesn’t sound like Paul completely trashed the law to me, Ferde.

Does it still sound like it to you?
Ferde Rombola:

I add ‘oral revelation’ to that and it precisely describes the Catholic Church who continues to rely on the Lord’s 2000 year old promises to send the Spirit to lead us to all truth and to be with us until the end of the world. He didn’t make those promises to Luther, did He? And He certainly didn’t make them to you. Did he?

He made that specific promise to the Apostles, Ferde, here’s the promise He made to me:1 John 2:20But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you all know. ISTM, that right abut now, you must be wishin’ you read the scripture a bit more.
Ferde Rombola:

It doesn’t take Paul to prove that. When Peter walked out the door on the day of Pentecost he didn’t have a book in his hand, did he? He PREACHED, didn’t he? And he and the rest continued to PREACH, didn’t they? And their successors PREACHED as well, didn’t they? Are you seriously going to deny the Apostles and their successors taught from oral tradition? I hope not. You’ve dug a deep enough hole for yourself as it is.

Way to gloss over my point.
Ferde Rombola:

Anyone caring about the truth of the Gospel message will study all of Scripture under the guidance of someone who is authorized to interpret it. Only the Catholic Church has the infallible authority to interpret Scripture. “Whatsoever you shall bind on earth will be bound in heaven. Whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Right out of the Scripture you worship.

That’s a strawman, Ferde, I don’t worship the Scripture.
Ferde Rombola:

I have news for you, friend. Jesus is not a book.

You’re incredibly perceptive, Ferde, thanks for that most profound insight.
Ferde Rombola:

Good luck in your search for the truth. And pray. A lot.

I don’t believe in luck, Ferde.

But, I will, Ferde.

I’ll pray.

A lot.

For you.

:tiphat:

 

[Benadam]

In the the beginning the People of God made the Word of God visible with their bodies and lives. This revelation was kept in the heart of this people orally and through deeds in memory of the father’s who made it visible. Since the beginning a tradition has followed the life of the People of God to testify to the truth.

Eventually the tradition that followed the People of God was written so that the teachers appointed by the fathers who made the Word visible could remind the children of the fathers where they were and where they are going until eventually the Word of God came down from heaven and confirmed the Word made visible by His People since the beginning.

The People of God renewed and confirmed in the Word made flesh continued to make God in the flesh visible and a tradition followed their lives to keep their memory a living testimony. Since the beginning a tradition has followed the People who make the Word visible on earth and again the Word made visible by the People of God was written down so that teachers appointed by their father’s could remind their children where they came from so they know who they are and where they are going.

Then a part of the people of God decided that the People of God were not His People and the testimony that was written about them was not theirs but a people who were no longer visible . They taught that the tradition that followed the People of God was no longer necessary and that the written testimony didn’t belong to them.

How can anyone decide at some arbitrary point in time that a tradition that has followed the People of God since Adam is no longer necessary and the testimony about them no longer testifies to them? How can they say that the Word of God is only found in a testimony and that the People of God can no longer be found?

No one can say that what has been true since the beginning became not true at some arbitrary point in time. No , that kind of change would not be ambiguous.

The Word of God is not primarily expressed by the written testimony that follows the lives of the People of God but by the lives of the People of God that make the Word of God visible.

Saul, Saul, why do you persecute “ME”?

 

[bullfrog654]

persicut you persicute us all i suppose. i was persicuted last night in silence. revenge is mine sayeth the lord.

per=pi

so you speak the answer within your silent question. the answer is evolution the seek in defing it to maintain life i suspect at least on earth. other worlds one could connect the time machine onto the internet to pages such as this on this site. devestating to say the least. other worlds futures programming mankind through message boards on the internet. thus erasing history or controling the prophets. i suspect some advanced aliens rely on methods as such to prosper in faith. nurturing civilization.

in basic sence the government believes in the freedom of information act but yellow important things out. consider if computers gamble enough and buy those atomic bombs they want and start ww3

 

[Jerry_Marino]

look, i’d rather be taught by a teacher who teaches from the bible

you all think otherwise.

 

[fhansen]

**There’s logic and common sense to the Catholic position. The doctrine of infallibility simply ensures what we all want and would think God would provide: the ability to correctly know the tenets of the Christian faith. The Church can trace her history back to before the New Testament was written-back to the words of Christ; that He would establish a Church which the gates of hell would not prevail against. Her teachings are consistent and her rulings have prevailed when heresy occurred and needed to be addressed. She doesn’t have to deal with wishfully thinking that Sola Scriptura could provide a clearly consistent voice of authority because *she *is that voice herself. And she teaches that while God forgives the sins of all who ask, He wants us changed-He’s never been in the business of allowing sinners into heaven, and this makes so much sense if you think about it.

But the question for us becomes: how do we know where, if anywhere, authority lies? In my own case I left the CC at a young age, thinking I’d never return, and later found the bible and began reading it for myself. Over time I sensed something different about it from the other “holy” books I had immersed myself into. There was a voice coming through -the voice of integrity, of truth. I recognized that much even if I didn’t understand the meaning of every last phrase. And I simultaneously recognized that God must be able to reach and touch me as an individual if the faith were to make sense-and if He were to fulfill the promises in the bible. And also that I should be able to take Him at His word and experience Him doing a work in me. And many Protestants have reached that point.

But there was still a missing piece. Much of what I believed hadn’t come only from reading the bible. Much of it already existed in the collective consciousness of the world around me. I had picked it up from my Catholic upbringing and from TV, from other people and from other literature. But now by continuing to follow the voice I recognized in the bible I thought I might’ve heard it calling me back to-could it be?-no way!-not back to the Church I had once considered might even be the embodiment of the Beast?! Yes, by giving her a chance, as an older adult still open to expanding my understanding of the truth, I actually realized to my own surprise I was discerning that same voice in the writings and teachings of the CC.

First of all, there never was a reason for anyone to leave the Church. The gospel was there-it always had been and had always challenged and motivated countless numbers of people to aspire to a higher level of humanity, to a higher level of holiness-a higher level of love- as attested to by the lives of saints as well as ordinary people and by their fruits: hospitals and orphanages and schools and universities and charitable giving and the like. The Church made altruism an authentic human value on a previously unheard of scale. And also present have been the hypocrites and the abusers and the debauchers, often in positions of leadership, not heeding the message of their own Church in any case. But the message-the good news-is the precious jewel she carries with her from generation to generation and that’s why the charism of infallibility is so important-not because her people are so perfect but precisely because they’re* not*.

**

 

[Th0t]

“To him that believes, all will be plain, if he read diligently the Scripture with the aid of those who are the priests in the Church, and in whose hands, as we have shown rests the doctrine of the Apostles.” - St Irenaeus, Adv. Heres. 1.iv.c.52

“Those who are out of the Church cannot have any understanding of the Divine Word…they all quote Scripture, but without the sense of Scripture.” Hilary of Poitier, In Matthaum xiii.1

“To attain to the truth of the Scriptures, we must follow the sense of them as entertained by the Universal Church, to which the Scriptures themselves bear testimony.” St Augustine of Hippo, Contra Crescon, 1.i.c.33

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul—that church which has the tradition and the faith with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (Against Heresies, 3:3:2) 189 AD.

 

[Th0t]

Unanswered Question Of The Century:

WHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES IT SAY THAT THE BIBLE ALONE IS THE SOLE RULE OF FAITH???

 

[centurion210]

Fhansen,
Your words really speak for many people I know. Although I never left the church, I probably stayed in because it was something I was comfortable with but really didn’t know much about. It wasn’t until one of my children casually mentioned that they were considering using a Protestant church for baptism, that I thought I should be able to give them a reason why it wasn’t a good idea. Well, they did baptize that child as well as two others in the Catholic Church but that began my journey into “discovering” what was right in front of me… the Catholic Church. Anyone who truly wants to know the mind of the early church and where it is today must-read the early fathers. Read their own words. Not someone else’s characterization of them. Once I did (and over and over again) I realized the early church was Catholic and to my amazement, still is. With that discovery, all doubt concerning female ordination, embryonic stem cell research, contraception, etc. etc. etc. ceased. The words of Matthew 16 are music to my ears. I forget who said the following concerning the Catholic Church “here comes everybody!”. And it is true though. Saints and sinners we are all here. Protestants like to point out all the flaws and all the flawed people in the history of the Church; isn’t it amazing that the church has flourished in spite of all the problems.
I hope these people on this thread who are not Catholics will follow the truth. If they do, I know where they will be… eventually.

 

[davidv]

look, i’d rather be taught by a teacher who teaches from the bible

you all think otherwise.

I’d rather be taught by teachers who were instructed by Christ and His Apostles.

 

[josie_L]

I never made a comparison between the reformers and the fathers, you’re the one doing that.

No, you implied, same thing.

Just the answer I was looking for. Neither have disagreements between the reformers affected my doctrine, and the doctrine of those churches which adhere to SS, just as all of the other denominations whose doctrines are peculiar to them don’t affect my doctrine, and just as my doctrine doesn’t affect yours.

Do you deliberately misunderstand what people post, who said anything about it (their disagreements) affecting your doctrine? We are talking of SS, which Howie, you very well know the reformers adhered to (by default) but surprise, surprise, could not come up with the same interpretation of the Bible. And you still want to believe that SS was doctrinally correct. This goes against all logic.

Take a look around and then, you tell me.

Howie, for SS to be a sound doctrine, all men would have to be holy and good, which we know is not the case, therefore, why then would God institute such a system of authority (to derive Truth) if He knew that men were sinful. He must have known that the practice of SS would lead to those who would twist scripture.

The church is always in danger of being overrun by false teachers, Josie, thus all of the warnings against false teachers.

Yes, but at the time Paul said this there was but one doctrine being taught (hold onto the written and the oral) by the apostles and the disciples of Christ. Those outside of apostolic authority were the false teachers that Paul was preaching against. Does your church or is your church “one, holy, catholic and apostolic,” howie? Are these the visible earmarks of your church? And Howie, Jesus himself stated the apostles would be led into all truth, was that a lie? And why do you believe God is capable of keeping the Bible inerrant but not his Church? Is God infallible or not? Could He have not created a system which even the gates of Hell could not prevail against. Jesus died for us to receive nothing less than the full Truth (this means quite frankly that your interpretation of Scripture means zip to me).

Wonderful; is there nothing you wouldn’t believe should the church declare it so?

You have separated yourself from Tradition (the oral teachings of Christ), it is not my fault you think as you do, and false to do so since you do not retain the full deposit of faith.

It’s not a ridiculous request, but you wish to make it seem so because you can’t fulfill it.

No, it is ridiculous, for it would take time and quite literally a dissertation of a response to fulfill your request. I have stated if you are truly motivated in knowing the answer to the question you posited to do your homework yourself, that is, read the ECFs. As such Tradition as passed down by the apostles to the ECFs was the same for all. The things for which you do not believe in like purgatory, the Eucharist, the loss of the gift of salvation, and such are what was delineated in fuller detail to them by the apostles and their successors. Out of curiousity, how do you describe the Trinity?

I don’t need to cite the fathers, Josie, the proof is in the passage, 2 Tim 3:14-17.

In other words, you are ignorant of the T/traditions passed down to the ECFs and so your whole argument against it is moot. You claim to know things when you couldn’t possibly as you yourself are unaware of what the ECFs posited. How can you argue against something you don’t know anything about.

I already did in my first post on the first page of this thread with the verse cited.

So your whole argument is based on a verse you misinterpreted, great debating, my friend. Truly convincing.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

You know, the reformers were right in declaring the Scriptures the sole rule of faith and morals. I agree with them, and so do many, many others in spite of your loud protestation. (Seems everyone’s a protestant at heart, eh, Ferde?)

You have, typically, ignored the point I made, changed the subject and are fraudulently trying to make it about me.

The question was, why should the doctrine of sola scriptura be found in Scripture. You answered, it shouldn’t…the 16th Century heretics were right and you agreed with them. (Which is, of course, a non-answer.) I replied, if it’s true, sola scripture should be found in scripture because you teach it as doctrine and the doctrine of sola scriptura says all Christian doctrine, to be true, must be found in Scripture. The 16th Century heretics were wrong and you’re wrong.

It’s not surprising you duck the question. You can’t answer it, so you just repeat the same nonsense you started with. You’re in over your head, kid and you’re starting to embarass yourself.

Most of the rest of the rest of your post is juvenile and silly not worth my time.

 

[ralphy]

I’d rather be taught by teachers who were instructed by Christ and His Apostles.

I would have to say if you would rather be taught by teachers who were instructed by Christ and His apostles, I don’t think you are going to find them and if you did find them , they certainly would not be in good enough condition to teach. Ralph

 

[Howie01]

You have, typically, ignored the point I made, changed the subject and are fraudulently trying to make it about me.

The question was, why should the doctrine of sola scriptura be found in Scripture. You answered, it shouldn’t…the 16th Century heretics were right and you agreed with them. (Which is, of course, a non-answer.) I replied, if it’s true, sola scripture should be found in scripture because you teach it as doctrine and the doctrine of sola scriptura says all Christian doctrine, to be true, must be found in Scripture. The 16th Century heretics were wrong and you’re wrong.

It’s not surprising you duck the question. You can’t answer it, so you just repeat the same nonsense you started with. You’re in over your head, kid and you’re starting to embarass yourself.

Most of the rest of the rest of your post is juvenile and silly not worth my time.

I gave you link for a read on the first chapter of a book containing essays on the different aspects of SS.

Apparently you didn’t read because you would rather remain in the dark concerning it.

So be it.

 

[Howie01]

josie L:

No, you implied, same thing.

No Josie.

Here’s the part of your statement I deliberately separated from the rest in order to avoid confusion:

Individually ECFs could have erred (although for the most part they didn’t) nevertheless it was the Magisterium (all the bishops including the Pope) that decided and/or concluded what was and wasn’t doctrine.

My response was toward the ECF.
josie L:

Do you deliberately misunderstand what people post, who said anything about it (their disagreements) affecting your doctrine?

I’m a careful reader, Josie. Again, from your statements I which I deliberately separated in order to avoid confusion, here’s the statement in your post to which my answer was directed:

Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and Knox believed they had the power and/or authority to reject doctrines and then to go on to develop their own? Why did they not agree?

Perhaps you should take greater care in running your disparate thoughts together.
josie L:

Howie, for SS to be a sound doctrine, all men would have to be holy and good…

That’s an unsupported opinion, Josie, to which, I’ll answer without support, “you’re wrong.”

If you’d like to make a case for your opinion, by elaborating in a reasoned way, be my guest.
josie L:

Yes, but at the time Paul said this there was but one doctrine being taught (hold onto the written and the oral) by the apostles and the disciples of Christ.

Not just at the time, Josie, but even today.
josie L:

Those outside of apostolic authority were the false teachers that Paul was preaching against.

Correct.
josie L:

Jesus died for us to receive nothing less than the full Truth (this means quite frankly that your interpretation of Scripture means zip to me).

OK.
josie L:

Does your church or is your church “one, holy, catholic and apostolic,” howie? Are these the visible earmarks of your church?

Here’s the opening statement from the link I provided to Ferde, although it seems he didn’t read it:There are two main issues that divide Protestant Catholics from Roman Catholics. Both groups claim to be catholic, that is, part of the apostolic, universal church of Jesus Christ. Roman Catholics believe we Protestants departed from that church in the sixteenth century. Protestant Catholics believe they departed earlier.Is that clear enough for you? Here again is the link for that article, .What do We Mean By, Sola Scriptura
josie L:

You have separated yourself from Tradition (the oral teachings of Christ), it is not my fault you think as you do, and false to do so since you do not retain the full deposit of faith.

I’ve separated myself from your church, Josie, in that you’re correct.
josie L:

No, it is ridiculous, for it would take time and quite literally a dissertation of a response to fulfill your request.

So by your own statement my request is not ridiculous, but too time-consuming for you.
josie L:

Out of curiousity, how do you describe the Trinity?

I’m not going to bother, Josie, it’ll probably "mean zip" to you.
josie L:

In other words, you are ignorant of the T/traditions passed down to the ECFs and so your whole argument against it is moot. You claim to know things when you couldn’t possibly as you yourself are unaware of what the ECFs posited. How can you argue against something you don’t know anything about.

I’m not arguing against something I know nothing about, Josie. Your response concerns my statement that everything I need to be equipped is contained in Scripture (2 Tim 3:14-17)—that’s something about which, I know a great deal.
josie L:

So your whole argument is based on a verse you misinterpreted, great debating, my friend. Truly convincing.

IOW, it "means zip" to you. So, I won’t be wasting anymore of the Lord’s precious time on this with you.

 

[bullfrog654]

long post man. anyhow we arent all holy i have schizophrenia and use karma stuff to stand on my own too feet trying not to rely only on meds. some in history call the cross an idol or star of david and so forth. i realize its bothered me too this day. my karma stuff some wouldnt be accepted for me too have by church even though it gives me peace of mind. i have bad books that i try to collect karma from so i dont deprive people or things i suppose the pastor would say its playing with fire. THEY MAY BE RIGHT

 

[davidv]

I would have to say if you would rather be taught by teachers who were instructed by Christ and His apostles, I don’t think you are going to find them and if you did find them , they certainly would not be in good enough condition to teach. Ralph

I have great news for you. I have found them. They are also available for your education too.

 

[Th0t]

The councils and the pope around the 3rd century who all agreed that the 73 books (46 in the old testament and 27 in the new testament) were inspired scripture. They gave the bible to the world. Most Protestants agree that the bible is a Catholic Bible or that it was given to them by Catholics.

The Apostles PROCLAIMED before writing the scriptures I know as well as everybody knows that somethings were not written down as it says in St. John.

The Early Catholic Church is/was the author of the bible.

Why is it that Protestants believe they can tell the authors of the bible what it is that it says (personal interpretation)?

 

[bullfrog654]

isnt the image of this vaticans site prayer initself for it is said if one or more gather in my name i will be there…

 

[Benadam]

look, i’d rather be taught by a teacher who teaches from the bible

you all think otherwise.

How can teachers with no connection to the community that gathers around Jesus since the beginning teach the True Faith?