SPLIT: Questions Catholics Will Not Answer.

[Pax]

I don’t have any problem giving credit to the Catholic church. I do believe your church has some errors but not everything is in error.

So, please explain the credit that you are willing to give to the Catholic Church when it comes to the canon of scripture, the preservation of scripture, the translation of scripture, and the accuracy of scripture. Then compare this what non-Catholics accomplished in these same areas starting with the 16th century with the commencement of the Reformation.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Why are you being dishonest? You signed on to this board in Nov. and have not asked most of these questions in any of your posts. Furthermore, I have never seen a sincerely asked question by anyone go unanswered here.

However, let’s lay that aside and start again on the right foot. Why don’t you start out on an honest footing here. Ask one question at a time and we will try our best to answer each, one at a time. Please make your next post a sincere question rather than a sarcastic remark.

Your servant in Christ.

That’s an ideal reply to the OP IMHO. ​

He seems to be getting a few answers now - over 230…

 

[Pwrlftr]

So, please explain the credit that you are willing to give to the Catholic Church when it comes to the canon of scripture, the preservation of scripture, the translation of scripture, and the accuracy of scripture. Then compare this what non-Catholics accomplished in these same areas starting with the 16th century with the commencement of the Reformation.

Well, let’s see…the reformers recognized the correct canon

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

If the Jews was expected to have canon and know what is Scripture and what is not then they will certainty have included the NT books in their “Scripture” status. They weren’t expected to have a canon of Scripture.

Which Jews was entrusted with the oracles of God?

St. Paul says they were. Granted, he says so in Romans - but if he was wrong, then Romans is wrong, & Scripture is not totally inerrant; but some people insist (basing their insistence on Popes) that it is. So one cannot deny that the Scriptures are the oracles of God - without imputing error to the Scriptures & committing a sin which is either heresy, or close to it. And heretics are not in the Church. ​

 

[Pwrlftr]

Not everything the apostles knew or believed in was committed to writing. Paul, for instance, never mentions the Virgin Birth, but I’m sure he heard about it and believed in it. Scripture is not the sole medium of revelation. Scripture stands alongside Tradition which was also handed down to us from the apostles. Revelation - all that is contained in Scripture - may be made explicit by the apostolic teaching authority of the Catholic Church conferred by Christ as promised with the help of the Holy Spirit. This truth is revealed to us in Scripture.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

Good Fella,

I appreciate your answer but, if someone claims that they have the same doctrines that the apostles had I would expect that they could somehow trace all of these doctrines back further than one can trace the evidence for the assumption. Since I used the assumption in an earlier example I guess I will try to be consistent and stick with it.

I understand your point about the virgin birth but the example you used is found explicitly in scripture. I also understand that we can come to different conclusions by reading the scriptures or even by reading your church’s official documents (Dei Verbum for example) but there are some beliefs your church teaches as dogma that aren’t found in the scriptures. These doctrines had to come from somwhere and the answer according to your church is that they came from apostolic tradition.

I see no reason to accept something that has no basis in scripture and a rather sketchy origin.

Of course if your church is what it claims to be, than you would be correct in accepting whatever it said no matter how shaky the evidence for it is.

 

[Church_Militant]

Okay…if you can trace the belief in the assumption back to the apostles do so.

Farther than that…how about the Old Testament. The apostles already knew of Enoch, Moses, and Elijah and so there is a clear precedent for assumptions, so why wouldn’t the Lord do it for His own mother who, next to him, is the most unique person in all of human history. How would she be less worthy of it than the 3 OT cases?

Well, let’s see…the reformers recognized the correct canon

I sure don’t think so. I did a little digging around and the fact is that the Alexandrian was already in wide use a good 2 + centuries before Jesus. The fact that the Jews at Jamnia intentionally espoused the Hebrew version because the Christians were using the Septuagint to spread the Gospel of Christ.

In fact, Gleason Archer & G.C. Chirichigno (Protestants) tell us in their book Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A Complete Survey (Chicago: Moody Press, 1983), that out of 373 OT quotes in the NT, over 90% (340) are from the Septuagint, while only 33 (less than 10%) are from the Hebrew text.

In view of that I don’t think you can validly claim that the Reformers recognized the correct canon.

Good Fella,

I appreciate your answer but, if someone claims that they have the same doctrines that the apostles had I would expect that they could somehow trace all of these doctrines back further than one can trace the evidence for the assumption. Since I used the assumption in an earlier example I guess I will try to be consistent and stick with it.

See above…

I understand your point about the virgin birth but the example you used is found explicitly in scripture. I also understand that we can come to different conclusions by reading the scriptures or even by reading your church’s official documents (Dei Verbum for example) but there are some beliefs your church teaches as dogma that aren’t found in the scriptures. These doctrines had to come from somwhere and the answer according to your church is that they came from apostolic tradition.

I see no reason to accept something that has no basis in scripture and a rather sketchy origin.

Of course if your church is what it claims to be, than you would be correct in accepting whatever it said no matter how shaky the evidence for it is.

Like I said, since God set the precedent of assuming His choice people back in the OT, I have to say that, 1. there’s no doubt that the apostles all knew that and 2. that there is no reason to deny the reports that Our Lord did indeed assume His mother into Heaven.

 

[Good_Fella]

Good Fella,

I appreciate your answer but, if someone claims that they have the same doctrines that the apostles had I would expect that they could somehow trace all of these doctrines back further than one can trace the evidence for the assumption.

I understand your point about the virgin birth but the example you used is found explicitly in scripture. I also understand that we can come to different conclusions by reading the scriptures or even by reading your church’s official documents (Dei Verbum for example) but there are some beliefs your church teaches as dogma that aren’t found in the scriptures. These doctrines had to come from somwhere and the answer according to your church is that they came from apostolic tradition.

I see no reason to accept something that has no basis in scripture and a rather sketchy origin.

Of course if your church is what it claims to be, than you would be correct in accepting whatever it said no matter how shaky the evidence for it is.

Scripture does tell us that Jesus did many things that were not recorded in Scripture (John 20, 30; 21, 25). These unmentioned events have been preserved through Apostolic Tradition which serves as a medium of divine revelation as part of the Deposit of Faith. And one of these things could very well include the Assumption of Mary, which would have occurred before John completed his gospel circa A.D. 90. In his prologue, Luke acknowledges that the Christian community have already received the teachings of Christ, and he tells Theophilus that he is writing his gospel to confirm the veracity of the Church’s traditional beliefs (Luke 1, 1-4). The evangelist - a true Catholic - is the first known Christian to have drawn a parallel between Mary and the Ark of the Covenant, although he does not explicitly say that “Mary is the New Ark of the Covenant”, a traditional Catholic belief (Luke 1, 39 / 2Samuel 6,2; Lk 1, 41 / 2Sam 6, 16; Lk 1, 43 /2Sam 6, 9; Lk 1, 56 / 2Sam 6, 11;1Chronicles 13, 14). We should observe that the Church finds Scriptural confirmation of Mary’s Assumption in Psalm 132, 8: 'Arise, O Lord, and go to thy resting place, you and the Ark (Mary) of your might." Both Jesus and Mary have been taken up to their eternal resting place: Jesus by his resurrection and ascension into heaven, Mary by her resurrection and assumption. Luke may have believed in Mary’s Assumption along with the entire faithful, but he could not record this miraculous event because nobody ever witnessed it, unlike Christ’s resurrection and ascension. At any rate, Divine revelation is not mediated through Scripture alone and the material contained in Scripture is not necessarily written in a clear and explicit manner. In fact, Paul taught by drawing material from non-Scriptural sources (Acts 17, 28; Col 4, 16). And he exhorts us to obey Apostolic Tradition, and not only Scripture ( 1Cor 11, 2; 2 Thess 2, 15). These passages are among many which refute the false Protestant concept of ‘sola scriptura’.

Meanwhile, we find strong Scriptural evidence for Mary’s Assumption in Revelation 12, 1 immediately after John envisioned the missing Ark of the Covenant in heaven. I find the strongest implicit confirmation in Matthew 15, 4: “Honour your father and your mother. Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.” Catholics find it hard to believe that our Lord could possibly ever dismiss one of his own commandments while expecting us to follow them in all righteousness. It is incredible to think that Jesus would go back on his own word by casting the curse of Eve on his mother (Gen 3, 16, 19). Jesus meant what he said about the Fourth Commandment, and, while he was on earth, he exemplified with perfection how we are to treat our parents. Mary was no less our Lord’s mother after his resurrection and ascension into heaven. And we know that Jesus considered God’s commandments worthy of following, as we all should (Mt 4, 11). Finally, in Genesis 3, 15 we are told that God put enmity between Mary and Satan and between her seed and his seed, namely original sin. By this passage the Church has always believed in her Tradition from earliest times that Mary was spared the stain of original sin, and so the curse of Eve - death and bodily corruption together - could not be cast on her. Mary’s Assumption must have taken place by the wisdom and power of Almighty God. The Church dogmatically declared as well that the Holy Spirit is God, but nowhere in Scripture does it explicitly say that the “Holy Spirit is God”. Many heresies about the Trinity have sprung because individual Christians presumed they could privately interpret Scripture against the traditional teachings of the Apostolic Church. If only Paul or any of the other New Testament authors made this truth explicitly clear in their texts to begin with. :yup:

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Old_Scholar]

What do you make of Carthage and Hippo?

Augustine controlled the African councils then and he considered the canon closed. Although some of the apocryphal books were included in their statement, it wasn’t until Trent that it was officially determined.

A full dogmatic articulation of the canon was not made until the Council of Trent of 1546 for Roman Catholicism,[from the Catholic Encyclopedia] the Thirty-Nine Articles of 1563 for the Church of England, the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1647 for Calvinism, and the Synod of Jerusalem of 1672 for the Greek Orthodox.

Many people forget the basic factor for recognizing a book’s canonicity for the New Testament. It had to be by divine inspiration and it was the apostolicity that was used as the chief test. It did not have to be written by an apostle but had to be written under apostolic authority because that authority was never detached from the authority of God.

Many councils listed the books they thought were canonical but in most cases they disagreed. For the Roman Catholics, it was the council of Trent that finally put it to rest. That also happened as soon as Martin Luther began discounting certain books.

 

[stadre]

Furthermore, we know of the canonized Old Testament because Jesus quoted from it extensively. He said the Scriptures, at that time, were complete. Read John 5:39 and Luke 24:44. Jesus testified to the authority of the Old Testament, the Law, the Writings and the Prophets; the threefold division.

I’m glad you brought that up because I can prove that this will support the Dueterocanonical books. here is a list of DC passages quotes in the New Testament to make this point.
DEUTEROCANONICAL BOOKS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT and this , from my friend Wolsely is posted on my own blog. The Deuterocanonical Books of the Catholic Bible

I am not as qualified as some here to enter this discussion, but I would love to see this more thoroughly developed.

 

[Jlcastagna]

Can you give me a source for it? Preferably not one by a catholic apologist, I am looking for a primary source.

In other words I’m not really interested in the truth, I’m just here to cause confusion and to draw the faithful away from the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

 

[Pwrlftr]

In other words I’m not really interested in the truth, I’m just here to cause confusion and to draw the faithful away from the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Troll much lately?

I wouldn’t expect you to accept the word of a non-Catholic apologist and would try to provide either a primary source or as non-biased a source as I could. I would expect the same from you.

 

[Old_Scholar]

This is nice and all but you completely ignore the Alexandrian text as if it did not exist, and also pretend that the Jews did use it, when we know for a fact that they did.

There were few Jews in Alexandria. It is only natural that they were influenced by those in the East. The Jews in the West did not accept the Septuagint at all.
Church Militant;3212914:

I find it interesting that you reject what the church actually held as canon and actually misstate what councils proclaimed as canon, while appealing to Josephus and Jewish sources that rejected Christ, instead of the believers who paid with their lives for our most holy faith.I’m glad you brought that up because I can prove that this will support the Dueterocanonical books. here is a list of DC passages quotes in the New Testament to make this point.

The churches of that day had problems accepting what they believed was the canon. The canon was what was taught in the churches and accepted by the people as canon. Not what someone told them was canon.

DEUTEROCANONICAL BOOKS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

and this , from my friend Wolsely is posted on my own blog. The Deuterocanonical Books of the Catholic BibleNo contest here.And well he should not since he was definitively condemned by the early church (St. Irenæus in particular) as a heretic.

I will have to comment on this in another post as I don’t have room here.

Here again, you choose to appeal to a source that is not valid authority. First the Jews and now one who was known for heresy.
Why is that, when there are so many real Christian sources and authorities that are valid?

I guess you know what is valid authority. How about the writings of Irenæus, considered by many to be a heretic; Origen, a known heretic, Tertullian, also a heretic, Constantine, a heretic who was baptised into the Arian belief, Eusebius of Cæsarea, a heretic, Leo IV, a heretic, Nestorius, a heretic, and Cyrus of Alexandria.

Do you not use or believe any of their writings because some called them heretics? What sources would you use? Would you believe Augustine, considered to be untruthful by some?

It all goes back to Scripture, the only truth we know we have for sure.

I’ll address the rest in a post later…I have some life to attend to.

 

[Old_Scholar]

OldScholar,

You claim that the deuterocanonicals were only added to the Catholic canon at Trent. Would you please document when the Gospel of John was added to the canon?

The gospels were never added—they were the backbone of authority from the beginning. I don’t believe you will find any list that does not include them.

 

[Tomster]

I am not as qualified as some here to enter this discussion, but I would love to see this more thoroughly developed.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=3129945#post3129945

posts #5,6,7,8

 

[Tomster]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=3129945#post3129945

posts #5,6,7,8

sorry, posts # 3, 5,6,7,8

 

[VociMike]

The gospels were never added—they were the backbone of authority from the beginning. I don’t believe you will find any list that does not include them.

But the argument that the deuterocanonicals were only infallibly included in the canon in 1546 at Trent applies just as much to the 4 Gospels, and to every other book of the New Testament. And that fact makes the claim about the deuterocanonicals only being added to the canon in 1546 (and thus falsely implying that the deuterocanonicals were added to an already infallibly declared canon) ludicrous.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Farther than that…how about the Old Testament. The apostles already knew of Enoch, Moses, and Elijah and so there is a clear precedent for assumptions, so why wouldn’t the Lord do it for His own mother who, next to him, is the most unique person in all of human history. How would she be less worthy of it than the 3 OT cases?I sure don’t think so.

I agree that our Lord could have assumed Mary into heaven but this isn’t evidence that it actually happened. My point is that I haven’t seen any evidence that the church of the first few centuries had any belief in the assumption. It is often stated by Catholics on this forum that all the doctrines that the church teaches are apostolic in nature and it seems that it is one thing to make the claim and quite another to demonstrate that the claim is true.

I did a little digging around and the fact is that the Alexandrian was already in wide use a good 2 + centuries before Jesus. The fact that the Jews at Jamnia intentionally espoused the Hebrew version because the Christians were using the Septuagint to spread the Gospel of Christ.

In fact, Gleason Archer & G.C. Chirichigno (Protestants) tell us in their book Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A Complete Survey (Chicago: Moody Press, 1983), that out of 373 OT quotes in the NT, over 90% (340) are from the Septuagint, while only 33 (less than 10%) are from the Hebrew text.

I still haven’t seen anyone answer my questions about the Alexandrian canon. The three codices we have of the septuagint are all Christain copies that date back to around the 4th century and they don’t all contain the same books so those three don’t demonstrate what the supposed Alexandrian canon was of Jesus’ time and prior to Jesus’ time. What Jewish author lists the books of the Alexandrian canon? What manuscripts do we have of that canon?

What books did the septuagint include and what books were thought to be canonical? Quotation from the septuagint does not equal canonical status for the deutero’s. The deutero’s are never quoted in a way that indiates that they were thought of as scripture. None of them are quoted with “thus sayeth the Lord” or some other construct indicating a belief in the inspiration of the books.

In view of that I don’t think you can validly claim that the Reformers recognized the correct canon. See above…Like I said, since God set the precedent of assuming His choice people back in the OT, I have to say that, 1. there’s no doubt that the apostles all knew that and 2. that there is no reason to deny the reports that Our Lord did indeed assume His mother into Heaven.

Who believed in the assumption of Mary during the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, or 5th centuries? I think the earliest text we have illustrating such a belief only dates back to the 4th or 5th century. If you have something more on this, please post it.

 

[guanophore]

What exactly do you believe the seat of Moses to be? Was it an infallible office?

I have not studied this in depth, but it is clear that Moses was approved by God to instruct the people in the practice of the Law, and that the Pharisees sat in the seat of Moses (empowered by God to instruct the people) and that Jesus instructed that “whatsoever they say, do ye”. If that is not infallible, it is still pretty strong authority.

An infallible office is one that has the guarantee of the Holy Spirit to prevent error from being taught.

 

[Pwrlftr]

I have not studied this in depth, but it is clear that Moses was approved by God to instruct the people in the practice of the Law, and that the Pharisees sat in the seat of Moses (empowered by God to instruct the people) and that Jesus instructed that “whatsoever they say, do ye”. If that is not infallible, it is still pretty strong authority.

An infallible office is one that has the guarantee of the Holy Spirit to prevent error from being taught.

I agree that it was an office of authority but see no reason to see it as an infallible office and in fact due to the Pharisees misuse of the corban rule see strong reason to exclude infallibility from the seat of Moses.

 

[justinthemartyr]

justasking4

**You don’t really expect to get answers to your questions do you?

I’ve been asking some of the same questions for quite some time but the answers just don’t come, because they can’t answer them.

If the Roman Catholic Church really gave us the Bible, then why did it get it so wrong? Specifically rejecting James and Hebrews and then later accepting it? Isn’t the church infallible? This proves it is not!

The Orthodox Church also claims to be the only true church and also claims to have given us the Bible but it rejected Revelation and then later accepted it. Infallible??? The church also accepted several books as Scripture and then later rejected them. So much for infallibility and being guided by the Holy Spirit.

The RCC claims to have given the church the Bible in 397 AD, yet many different versions of it were still being accepted and circulated long after. Why? Isn’t the church infallible?

And if the RCC gave us the Bible, then why didn’t it get it right the first time. It added the apocrypha in 1546 at the Council of Trent. Just a popularity contest, the same way they elect a pope.

Both the RCC and The Orthodox claim to have given us the Bible and if they did, why are the Bibles different?

If Catholics are not permitted to engage in private interpretation of the Bible, how do they know which “apostolic tradition” is correct between the RCC, the Orthodox and the Watchtower churches, as they all three teach that the organization alone can interpret Scripture correctly, to exclude individuals?

Why did God fail to provide an inspired and infallible list of Old Testament books to Israel? Why did He provide such a list only after Israel was destroyed in 70 A.D.?

Why do Roman Catholics always use 2 Timothy 2:2; 3:14 as Biblical proof that extra-biblical oral tradition is to be followed through apostolic succession, when tradition says Timothy became the bishop of Ephesians, which through succession, is now part of the Greek Orthodox church and not the Roman Catholic Church? If 2 Timothy 2:2 proves apostolic succession, then this proves that the Roman Catholic Church is not part of that succession.

How do the Roman Catholics, who can read, know for certain that the priest is faithfully teaching the dogma, canons and edicts of councils if they do not possess copies of such documents?

If the earliest, universal oral tradition clearly states that Paul wrote the book of Hebrews, why does the RCC question this tradition even to this day?

Ask them to name one sure way or method, that a new believer in Christ, can know that the Roman Catholic Church is the one true church. Make sure however that the same method cannot apply to the Orthodox Church, else it can’t be true.

If the personal illumination of the Holy Spirit upon each believer to understand the Bible is not a valid method of determining truth because of the many denominations that use this approach, then does it not follow that apostolic succession and oral church traditions are likewise invalid because the RCC and Orthodox Churches are two denominations that use this method, yet are not in agreement on doctrine? Does this prove that both methods are wrong and a third method, one which we and the apostolic church practiced must be the correct method?

If *Sola Scriptura ***cannot be the correct method of determining truth because of the religious division among churches that claim to use Sola Scriptura, then does this not also disqualify the RCC and the Orthodox churches method of using tradition, since they are also divided?

Ask Roman Catholics these questions and see how many answers you get. I’m betting you get ignored…

Is this a joke? I hope so because I am laughing at it.