SPLIT: Catholic Doctrines vs Sola Scriptura

  • Thread starter Thread starter justasking4
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
guanophore;3537349]
Originally Posted by justasking4
Yes you should ignore the woman in Revelations 12 as Mary.
guanophore
ja4, it is not appropriate for you to come to a Catholic forum and tell Catholics what they “should” or “should not” do about their faith. It is even more inappropriate for you, as a ‘bible christian’ to tell anyone to ignore part of scripture!
Huh? It has already been refuted by catholic scholars that the woman of Revelations 12 is Mary. That is what should be ignored.
Originally Posted by justasking4
Here is why from a couple of catholic scholars by …
As you can see these are from your own catholic sources.
guanophore
Catholic doctrine is not defined by modern scholars.
That may be but they do carry a lot of weight.
You ignored the meat of VociMike’s post:
You argued that, if there was no written record of something, then it did not exist.
You misunderstand me. Without a written record we cannot be sure of anything in the past like this. There are no eyewitnesses alive that could bear witness to the truthfulness of this. What we are left with is mere speculation.
 
guanophore;3537402]:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Where does it say in this passage that this is “Sacred Oral Tradtion”? Jude is only 25 verses long and i don’t see any such term or concept mentioned.
guanophore
Oh, dear, ja4. This is truly embarrassing.
Are you saying that a direct quote from the Sacred Oral Tradition is not sufficient, but that Jude has to say “this is a quote from Sacred Tradition” or else you can’t believe it? Is it not sufficient that it is in the NT, but not the old? Oy Vey!
How do you know Jude got this from Sacred Oral Tradition and not a written source?
justasking4;3537124 Now your really confusing me. Where did Jesus use this example in gospels? [/QUOTE said:
]

You have confused YOURSELF, ja4. You asked for something that was not there, then when it was given to you, you start spinning around. Do you imagine that Jude is writing something CONTRARY to the Teachings of Jesus?

Huh? Where did Jesus Himself speak of these things in the gospels?
Or do you think he made it up, like you make up your teachings, and God still allowed it to be included in the Bible?
I would think he got it from some source but not sure what it was. I suspect it was a written source since it seems it relates to some long before his time. What do you think?
 
You misunderstand me. Without a written record we cannot be sure of anything in the past like this. There are no eyewitnesses alive that could bear witness to the truthfulness of this. What we are left with is mere speculation.
So now the Divine guidance and protection which Christ promised to His Church is “mere speculation”? The contempt shown in certain Protestant circles for Christ’s Church is beyond astounding. You act as though God is simply not part of the equation, even though he said he is.

I’ve said it before. There is nobody who so resembles an atheist arguing against Christianity, as a Protestant arguing against the Catholic Church. The parallels are uncanny.
 
guanophore;3537402]:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Was the source of these quotes considered inspired-inerrant?
guanophore
This is what we have been trying to tell you all along, ja4. the Sacred Tradition is the source of all the scriptures, OT and NT. They are ALL inspired and inerrant, otherwise, they could not be that way after they were written down. The teachings in the Gospels were infallible from the time they occurrred, not from the time they were written. Furthermore, there is nothing that says the Oral Tradition “disappeared” as you have been taught to believe.
Has this “sacred Oral Tradition” disappeared yet? If not, then what exactly is it?
 
Huh? It has already been refuted by catholic scholars that the woman of Revelations 12 is Mary. That is what should be ignored.
:confused:

The double negative is very confusing.

As for Protestant stances on the Book of Revelation, they seem to change every week. They all say they believe “what the Bible teaches,” but when you ask them what that is, you get a different answer from every church. Whereas the consistent Catholic tradition is seen by them as unreliable. :rolleyes:
It’s all this Rapture business–it seems like some of them really want the world to end. 🤷
 
VociMike;3537438]
Originally Posted by justasking4
You misunderstand me. Without a written record we cannot be sure of anything in the past like this. There are no eyewitnesses alive that could bear witness to the truthfulness of this. What we are left with is mere speculation.
VociMike
So now the Divine guidance and protection which Christ promised to His Church is “mere speculation”?
What is this “Divine guidance” that you speak of?
Lets take Mary’s assumption as an example. In 1950 the pope declares this as a dogma yet we know there are absolutely no bibilical or historical facts to support the claim. Without these supports you have speculation.
The contempt shown in certain Protestant circles for Christ’s Church is beyond astounding. You act as though God is simply not part of the equation, even though he said he is.
I’ve said it before. There is nobody who so resembles an atheist arguing against Christianity, as a Protestant arguing against the Catholic Church. The parallels are uncanny.
Its not comtempt but a looking at the facts that are used to support doctrines. If there are none then its not about contempt but about speculations and deceptions. Its about leaders and teachers promoting doctrines that are not grounded in facts but on speculations which lead men astray.
 
Nonsense. I have speaking directly to cherished catholic beliefs that i know from expierence if you challenge them will be hated for doing so. Its not about being a martyr but a fact when a person engages for Christ.
Sorry, ja4. Don’t know which catholics you are used to, but those are not the ones you will find here. Catholics here submit to Christ’s instructions that we love our enemies, and pray for those who persecute us. Therefore, we cannot “hate” you, even if we hate your behavior. We also believe that, if we do not forgive our brother from our heart, then our sins will not be forgiven either, so we cannot even hold your heinous sins against you. :gopray2:

It is a mystery why you would attack another Christians’ cherished beliefs. Where does it tell you in Scripture to do this?
You oppose the truth. I have continually demonstrated many errors in catholic teachings by Scripture and history. You and others have not been able to refute these facts.
ja4, these may be facts in your own small world, and you are welcome to them. The purpose of CAF is not for you to come here and tell us that our cherished beliefs are errors. You clearly are not “justasking” anything, but have an agenda to convert Catholics to bible Christians. I would urge you to open your own forum, and invite anyone who wants to come. 👍
Then lets test what you have learned by studying the doctrines and practices of the catholic church. Lets compare them with the scriptures and see where it leads.
You have done this to your satisfaction, have you not? Are you not fully pursuaded that Catholic doctrines are the “speculations of men”? Whereas, we have no need to do any such thing, since not only do we recognize your private interpretation as authoritative, but we know that our doctrines are based on the Teaching of Jesus, and not your limited understanding of the Holy Scriptures.
Huh? It has already been refuted by catholic scholars that the woman of Revelations 12 is Mary. That is what should be ignored.
No, ja4. We do not ignore the Teachings of the Apostles because some errant modern day scholar decides he does not agree with the Magesterium. :dts:

Since you have rejected the Sacred Tradition, you are at liberty to ignore the Teachings of the Magesterium (to your own peril). You disobey the Apostolic Teaching:

2 Thess 2:14-15
15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.
That may be but they do carry a lot of weight.
Only for those in rebellion against the Authority appointed by Christ.

Gal 1:7-9
8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed.

Do you know what it means to be accursed?
You misunderstand me. Without a written record we cannot be sure of anything in the past like this. There are no eyewitnesses alive that could bear witness to the truthfulness of this. What we are left with is mere speculation.
You cannot be sure, because you are separated from those who are the stewards of the divine mysteries. Here at CAF, you try to separate others who are in unity with those stewards. :eek:
How do you know Jude got this from Sacred Oral Tradition and not a written source?
When you find it in your OT, you let me know.! 👍

You wanted evidence of the Sacred Oral Tradition (the Word of God that is not in the Scripture). It was given to you. Now you want to say it is not Sacred Tradition, because someone may have written it somewhere else besides the Bible? If I were to say “oh, maybe they got that from one of the other writings” will you say "well, it is not in the Bible (OT) and that is all we have that counts. 🤷
Huh? Where did Jesus Himself speak of these things in the gospels?
You asked for something that was not in the gospels. It was given to you. Now you want to see it in the gospel? Do you see yourself chasing your tail?

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1022/754356724_5397681c4d.jpg
Code:
I would think he got it from some source but not sure what it was. I suspect it was a written source since it seems it relates to some long before his time. What do you think?
I think you are right, it relates to things long before his time, just like the account in Genesis of the creation and the experiences of Abraham occurred long before their time. You see, God prepared His people to receive and maintain Sacred Oral Tradition. That is one of the reasons that Salvation has come from the Jews. 👍
 
Has this “sacred Oral Tradition” disappeared yet? If not, then what exactly is it?
No, it has not, but since you have invented or maintain this invented doctrine of “the written age”, which is nowhere found in scripture, I might add, it is not possible for you to access the Sacred Tradition. It is one of the Divine Mysteries of whom the Apostolic Successors are stewards, and it is not accessible to the faithless. 😊
 
guanophore;3537502]
ja4, these may be facts in your own small world, and you are welcome to them. The purpose of CAF is not for you to come here and tell us that our cherished beliefs are errors. You clearly are not “justasking” anything, but have an agenda to convert Catholics to bible Christians. I would urge you to open your own forum, and invite anyone who wants to come.
Huh? What do you think this thread is about? Its about people who have different beliefs and views. Were supposed to challenge each other on this thread. If you can’t handle the heat then you may want to go somewhere else on this site. I would think there are plenty out here where you can discuss things among your fellow catholics. Don’t worry i limit myself to only a few… 👍
 
What is this “Divine guidance” that you speak of?
Lets take Mary’s assumption as an example. In 1950 the pope declares this as a dogma yet we know there are absolutely no bibilical or historical facts to support the claim. Without these supports you have speculation.
Fortunately the Divine guidance is not dependent upon historical facts or the Bible. 👍
Its not comtempt but a looking at the facts that are used to support doctrines. If there are none then its not about contempt but about speculations and deceptions. Its about leaders and teachers promoting doctrines that are not grounded in facts but on speculations which lead men astray.
Catholics consider it contemptuous when you refer to the Sacred Teachings as false, speculations, and leading men astray.
 
Huh? What do you think this thread is about? Its about people who have different beliefs and views.
Sorry brother, that’s not the purpose of this forum. The purpose of this forum is so that those who are sincerely inquiring into the Catholic Faith (which you clearly are not), can get authentic answers, not the misguided misinformation that they get from Protestants. 👍

May the Peace of the Lord be with you always.

You servant in Christ.
 
So these teachings were okay for the many years that they were being passed down orally by Jewish authorities, before they were written down?
Ja4,

Can you please go back and look at the background of your quote in my post here and answer my question. I’ve asked you a few times, thanks!
 
…
Lets take Mary’s assumption as an example. In 1950 the pope declares this as a dogma yet we know there are absolutely no bibilical or historical facts to support the claim. Without these supports you have speculation…
Why do you conclude that there are “absolutely no biblical or historical facts to support the claim?” What does that mean? For instance, does it matter that there are churches bearing names referring to Mary’s assumption dating back over 1500 years before 1950?
 
Huh? What do you think this thread is about? Its about people who have different beliefs and views. Were supposed to challenge each other on this thread. If you can’t handle the heat then you may want to go somewhere else on this site. I would think there are plenty out here where you can discuss things among your fellow catholics. Don’t worry i limit myself to only a few… 👍
Well, let’s see…
Have you studied church history or catholic doctrines such as the marian doctrines, purgatory and indulgences? Keep in mind that if you convert to catholicism you will be embracing a lot of doctrines and practices not taught by Jesus or His apostles.
It begins with an erroneous assumption on your part…
It appears to be about you, attempting to discourage someone from becoming Catholic because you do not agree with the doctrine taught by the Catholic church.

You are permitted to bring challenges if you do so in a manner which respects the faith of Catholics, which you have not.
 
Why do you conclude that there are “absolutely no biblical or historical facts to support the claim?” What does that mean? For instance, does it matter that there are churches bearing names referring to Mary’s assumption dating back over 1500 years before 1950?
Oh! such a thing can easily be explained away. See, the false teachers infiltrated the church, led men astray, and then they built these church’s and misnamed them because they were carried away by speculations. 😉
 
guanophore;3537688]
Originally Posted by justasking4
What is this “Divine guidance” that you speak of?
Lets take Mary’s assumption as an example. In 1950 the pope declares this as a dogma yet we know there are absolutely no bibilical or historical facts to support the claim. Without these supports you have speculation.
guanophore
Fortunately the Divine guidance is not dependent upon historical facts or the Bible.
You have no way knowing this “Divine guidance” but the word of man. Without facts or the scriptures you have speculations.
 
Gamera;3537726]
Originally Posted by justasking4
…
Lets take Mary’s assumption as an example. In 1950 the pope declares this as a dogma yet we know there are absolutely no bibilical or historical facts to support the claim. Without these supports you have speculation…
Gamera
Why do you conclude that there are “absolutely no biblical or historical facts to support the claim?” What does that mean?
Mary probably died before 90. There is no eyewitness documentary evidence from this time period. The Scriptures also don’t mention it. Even catholic scholars admit to this:
The Roman Catholic writer Eamon Duffy concedes that, ‘there is, clearly, no historical evidence whatever for it …’ (Eamon Duffy, What Catholics Believe About Mary (London: Catholic Truth Society, 1989), p. 17). For centuries in the early Church there is complete silence regarding Mary’s end. The first mention of it is by Epiphanius in 377 A.D. and he specifically states that no one knows what actually happened to Mary. He lived near Palestine and if there were, in fact, a tradition in the Church generally believed and taught he would have affirmed it. But he clearly states that ‘her end no one knows.’
For instance, does it matter that there are churches bearing names referring to Mary’s assumption dating back over 1500 years before 1950?
This still would not be proof of her assumption. Your still removed over 400 years from the supposed event.
 
Mary probably died before 90. There is no eyewitness documentary evidence from this time period. The Scriptures also don’t mention it. Even catholic scholars admit to this:
The Roman Catholic writer Eamon Duffy concedes that, ‘there is, clearly, no historical evidence whatever for it …’ (Eamon Duffy, What Catholics Believe About Mary (London: Catholic Truth Society, 1989), p. 17). For centuries in the early Church there is complete silence regarding Mary’s end. The first mention of it is by Epiphanius in 377 A.D. and he specifically states that no one knows what actually happened to Mary. He lived near Palestine and if there were, in fact, a tradition in the Church generally believed and taught he would have affirmed it. But he clearly states that ‘her end no one knows.’

This still would not be proof of her assumption. Your still removed over 400 years from the supposed event.
`
:yawn: :sleep:
 
guanophore;3537502]
Originally Posted by justasking4
How do you know Jude got this from Sacred Oral Tradition and not a written source?
guanophore;
When you find it in your OT, you let me know.!
Its not in there as far as i know.
You wanted evidence of the Sacred Oral Tradition (the Word of God that is not in the Scripture). It was given to you.Now you want to say it is not Sacred Tradition, because someone may have written it somewhere else besides the Bible? If I were to say “oh, maybe they got that from one of the other writings” will you say "well, it is not in the Bible (OT) and that is all we have that counts.
If you are thinking this is some kind of “oral tradiiton” you have failed to show that. In fact i know its impossible to show that it was since you have no record of it.
 
I’m making some further comments on this issue.
guanophore;3537402
Originally Posted by justasking4
Was the source of these quotes considered inspired-inerrant?

guanophore
This is what we have been trying to tell you all along, ja4. the Sacred Tradition is the source of all the scriptures, OT and NT. They are ALL inspired and inerrant, otherwise, they could not be that way after they were written down.
Where is the evidence for this so called Sacred Tradition that is not in the scripture itself? You keep making this assertion and failing to show what exactly it is. Assumptions are not proof.
The teachings in the Gospels were infallible from the time they occurrred, not from the time they were written.
That was true then but not today. All that we have today is the written word of the gospels and it is these writing only that are inspired-inerrant.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top