SPLIT: Questions Catholics Will Not Answer.

[Church_Militant]

Well the last book of the New Testament was written prior to 90 A.D. and many of the books were written by the original twelve apostles.

According to some “scholars”, but that is iffy at best.

TIME AND PLACE (LINK)

The Seer himself testifies that the visions he is about to narrate were seen by him whilst in Patmos. “I John . . . was in the island which is called Patmos for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus” (1:9). Patmos is one of the group of small islands close to the coast of Asia Minor, about twelve geographical miles from Ephesus. Tradition, as Eusebius tells us, has handed down that John was banished to Patmos in the reign of Domitian for the sake of his testimony of God’s word (Hist. Eccl., III, 18). He obviously refers to the passage “for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus” (i, 9). It is true that the more probable meaning of this phrase is, “in order to hear the word of God”, etc., and not “banished because of the word of God”, etc., (cf. i. 2). But it was quite natural that the Seer should have regarded his banishment to Patmos as prearranged by Divine Providence that in the solitude of the island he might hear God’s word. The tradition recorded by Eusebius finds confirmation in the words of the Seer describing himself as “a brother and partaker in tribulation” (i, 9). Irenaeus places the Seer’s exile in Patmos at the end of Domitian’s reign. “Paene sub nostro saeculo ad finem Domitiani imperii” (Adv. Haer., V. 4). The Emperor Domitian reigned A.D. 81-96. In all matters of Joannine tradition Irenaeus deserves exceptional credit. His lifetime bordered upon the Apostolic age and his master, St. Polycarp, had been among the disciples of St. John. Eusebius, chronicling the statement of Irenaeus without any misgivings, adds as the year of the Seer’s exile the fourteenth of Domitian’s reign. St. Jerome also, without reserve or hesitation, follows the same tradition. “Quarto decimo anno, secundam post Neronem persecutionem movente Domitiano, in Patmos insulam relegatus, scripsit Apocalypsim” (Ex libro de Script. Eccl).

and many of the books were written by the original twelve apostles.

Were they? I don’t think so. The only apostles to pen any of the New Testament that we know of for sure are Matthew, John, James, Peter, and Jude. That is only 5 of the 12. Less than half…

They were eyewitnesses to Jesus’ ministry and traveled with Him during His 3 years of ministry.

No problem there…

The church did not give

the New Testament to anyone. It existed long before 405 A.D. It was written while many eyewitnesses still lived and if any of it had been false, then there would have been a public recognition of such.Really? So then you assert here that the apostles and other New Testament writers were not part of the church?

Moreover, explain for me who exactly exercised the authority to discern and decide what was inspired canon of scripture? You cannot point to any n-C early church source that dealt with this important issue and every single ancient extant list is from a Catholic source.

Mileto, Bishop of Sardis, c 175

St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, 185

Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, c 325

Pope Damasus in 382 prompted by the Council of Rome, wrote a decree listing the present 73 book canon.

Council of Hippo in 393 concurred with Damasus.

Council of Hippo in 397 concurred with Damasus and is the council that most Protestants take as the authority for the NT canon.

Pope St Innocent I in 405 approved the 73 book canon and closed the issue in a decree to the bishop of Toulouse.

In 419 the 2nd Council of Carthage affirmed that decree again.

In 1441 the ecumenical Council of Florence formally defined that same 73 book canon.

In 1546 the ecumenical Council of Trent formally defined that same 73 book canon in response to the errors of Martin Luther and the reformers.

I don’t see any n-Cs in there anywhere…

Anyone who thinks the church gave us the Bible is very wrong.

I can’t tell from the facts of history. I’d say that you are offering rhetorical anti-Catholic propaganda that has no basis whatever in actual fact.

Too much brainwashing going on somewhere.

Yeah… I agree. Maybe you should do your own homework and begin to question some of the things that others have fed you hook line and sinker.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Huh? The historical evidence for the resurrection is one of if not the best attested event in acient world. To have over 500 people who witnessed the risen Christ would hold up quite well in a court of law. I remember reading somewhere that it takes only 2 or 3 eyewitnesses to convict a person of a serious crime. To have this kind of evidence based on eyewitness accounts over a period of time and in different circumstances makes it a sure thing. Keep in mind that I Cor was probably written before 60 AD. Thats within 30 years of the event. Its absolutely astounding how good it is.

Then why don’t you believe in St. Mary’s special intercessory role and her assumption or the Fatima Miracle?

The Miracle of the Sun is an alleged miraculous event that was witnessed by as many as **100,000 **people on 13 October 1917 in the Cova da Iria fields near Fátima, Portugal. Those in attendance had assembled to observe what the Portuguese secular papers had been ridiculing for months as being the absurd claim of three shepherd children that a miracle was going to occur at high-noon in the Cova da Iria on October 13, 1917.

Protestants see and believe what they want to and only when its in opposition to the tenants of Catholicisms. What does that make you a selective-believer?

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

Well the last book of the New Testament was written prior to 90 A.D. and many of the books were written by the original twelve apostles. They were eyewitnesses to Jesus’ ministry and traveled with Him during His 3 years of ministry.

The church did not give the New Testament to anyone. It existed long before 405 A.D. It was written while many eyewitnesses still lived and if any of it had been false, then there would have been a public recognition of such.

We know how it was written because it tells us. Most of the writers had actually seen Christ, even those who did not travel with Him.

Anyone who thinks the church gave us the Bible is very wrong. Too much brainwashing going on somewhere.

Let’s take your line of reasoning to the limits of its logical conclusion:

So just when did a collection of memos, and letters written by a bunch of fishermen and heretical Jews that were alleged to be circulating around the region become “holy scripture”? Where they always holy scripture at the start of the first sentence written in ink or did they only become holy scripture after The Catholic Church assembled them into a cogent cannon and published Bible? Or was it King James who did that?

It is disordered to think the Catholic Church did not assemble the bible. But its something altogether beyond that to then take what the Catholic Church has assembled, call it “scripture” and use it as the standard to assail the Catholic Church for not teaching what it wrote.

What private Sola Scriptura attempts is tantamount to legalizing kidnapping and then disallowing the child to complain that it doesn’t know what it is saying about its mother and father.

James

 

[Tom]

If i take John 6 literally then it means Jesus is teaching a form of canabalism. Surely it does not mean that. Correct?

If God was limited to human capabilities He would have been teaching cannibalism, but He is not limited. When God says this is my flesh why does it need to be human flesh? Is God only human? No. God has manifested Himself in many forms, a dove, a bush, human, a lamb, Gods flesh can be anything God says it is, can’t it? Does Scripture say this is my “human” flesh? No. We read into it, that since He is at that time in human form, but He is not limited to human form is He? If God were to say a tree was His flesh, eat it, I’d be eating bark! The consecrated Host is His body because He says so. I have enough faith to trust in His words.

 

[Newbie2]

Church Militant

---

You need to look up the word “communion.” Everyone realizes that Christ was speaking metaphorically and did not expect anyone to bite a chunk out of His arm. To really think that you would be eating the actual flesh and drinking the actual blood is a little odd. Did the apostles actually bite into Jesus? Of course not!

Christ is present during the communion, no doubt about that because He promised He would be there but to believe we are drinking His blood is too much.

I always get a kick out of some who take most if not all of Scripture literally except when it comes to the Eucharist.

Anyone who thinks the church gave us the Bible is very wrong. Too much brainwashing going on somewhere.

Methinks most everyone here in the CAF is OK with the concept that God gave us the bible through the Church. Why, do you disagree?

 

[mercygate]

Methinks most everyone here in the CAF is OK with the concept that God gave us the bible through the Church. Why, do you disagree?

People object for two main reasons.

The first is that people really do think that in the first few centuries the “church” was a collection of independent congregations. The idea that these Christian communities were putting their heads together (as in Acts 15) and making important decisions collectively as questions arose is alien to them. They believe that the “true” Church has no incarnational manifestation through an organizational structure.

The second is a sub-section of the first. If you acknowledge that Christ’s promise to build “one” Church upon the Apostles, with Peter at the earthly helm, then you are forced to come to terms with the horrible fact that Rome is the only candidate that meets the criteria. Since that is, a priori, not acceptable, then you are left with the “invisible church” theory.

 

[Ignatius]

Also, doesn’t your church teach that those of use who are outside the formal boundary of your church (ie. Christian but not Catholic), while being at a disadvantage, may nonetheless be saved?

We know where the Grace of His Church is to be found (i.e. The Catholic Church), we don’t know where it is not. If you want to see how far away from it you can get without going too far, that is your decision. The Catholic Church does not presume to know on whom God will have mercy and whom He will not.

 

[Ignatius]

You need to look up the word “communion.” Everyone realizes that Christ was speaking metaphorically.

Everyone? No, my dearly beloved brother, not but a slim minority hold that erroneous opinion. At least 80 % of all Christians, including a sizeable number of Protestant denominations realize that the Eucharist literally contains the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ.

Your servant in Christ.

 

[geraldffff]

Let’s take your line of reasoning to the limits of its logical conclusion:

So just when did a collection of memos, and letters written by a bunch of fishermen and heretical Jews that were alleged to be circulating around the region become “holy scripture”? Where they always holy scripture at the start of the first sentence written in ink or did they only become holy scripture after The Catholic Church assembled them into a cogent cannon and published Bible? Or was it King James who did that?

It is disordered to think the Catholic Church did not assemble the bible. But its something altogether beyond that to then take what the Catholic Church has assembled, call it “scripture” and use it as the standard to assail the Catholic Church for not teaching what it wrote.

What private Sola Scriptura attempts is tantamount to legalizing kidnapping and then disallowing the child to complain that it doesn’t know what it is saying about its mother and father.

James

exactly

 

[Pax]

Well the last book of the New Testament was written prior to 90 A.D. and many of the books were written by the original twelve apostles. They were eyewitnesses to Jesus’ ministry and traveled with Him during His 3 years of ministry.

The church did not give the New Testament to anyone. It existed long before 405 A.D. It was written while many eyewitnesses still lived and if any of it had been false, then there would have been a public recognition of such.

We know how it was written because it tells us. Most of the writers had actually seen Christ, even those who did not travel with Him.

Anyone who thinks the church gave us the Bible is very wrong. Too much brainwashing going on somewhere.

You cannot be serious…If it were not for the Catholic Church there would be no New Testament writings available to us. Both the Jews and the Romans despised the early Christians and they destroyed copies of NT writings at every opportunity. If it were not for the martyrs and those that risked martyrdom there wouldn’t be any copies available. Likewise, the Catholic Church continued to copy and carefully preserve all of the writings within the early Church. Later the Church made the determination as to those that were inspired and those that were not. Even after the canon was determined the Catholic Church continued to copy and preserve the scriptures.

Not a single non-Catholic made any contribution in what I have just described.

 

[Newbie2]

People object for two main reasons.

The first is that people really do think that in the first few centuries the “church” was a collection of independent congregations. The idea that these Christian communities were putting their heads together (as in Acts 15) and making important decisions collectively as questions arose is alien to them. They believe that the “true” Church has no incarnational manifestation through an organizational structure.

The second is a sub-section of the first. If you acknowledge that Christ’s promise to build “one” Church upon the Apostles, with Peter at the earthly helm, then you are forced to come to terms with the horrible fact that Rome is the only candidate that meets the criteria. Since that is, a priori, not acceptable, then you are left with the “invisible church” theory.

Good point. I wonder if we then should use “Church” with a Big C and “church” with a little c.

 

[mercygate]

Good point. I wonder if we then should use “Church” with a Big C and “church” with a little c.

We do. “The Church” means the Catholic Church as a rule (although it can have an expanded meaning). Everything else is just “church”. The Catholic Church is the only The Church. People hate that. Anti-Catholics often refuse to capitalize it, just to make the point that the Catholic Church is not the “true” Church.

 

[Pax]

I guess I’m just pretty dumb then as I haven’t read the answers. Would you be so kind as to point them out to me?

Thank you!

This is from your post #574 where you have again made the claim that your original questions were never answered.

Please be advised that your claim is simply a denial. After 540 plus posts, it is hard for me to imagine how anyone would make such an assertion. You are hurting whatever credibility that might otherwise be associated with your own position and arguments by doing this.

 

[Tomster]

There has been no “slight of hand” in my posts and I have news for you, you are too are fallible.

No question about it. I am most certainly fallible. I have never claimed, nor will I ever claim, that charism for myself. But it is true that while Protestant pastors, preachers, evangelists, et. al., will never use the term infallible for themselves, they will expect you to agree with their own fallible interpretations or ask you to move on to another sect or start your own new one.

Please ANSWER this. What is the purpose of a pastor, preacher, evangelist within Protestantism, if you are free to agree or disagree with their own interpretations.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Please ANSWER this. What is the purpose of a pastor, preacher, evangelist within Protestantism, if you are free to agree or disagree with their own interpretations.

Let me jump in to offer an opinion.
Popular speculation among the laity of The Catholic Church is that Protestant preachers function like multi-level marketing coaches and sponsors (e.g. like Amway or Mary Kay product dealers and the like). They are responsible for getting a new person up to speed to a rudimentary level of scripture knowledge so the new converts can in confidence start their own private interpretation and exegesis. But just as soon as a new member starts claiming that the Pastor is “non-biblical” or starts bucking the leadership they know that the contagion has matured and its time to cut these lose to start their own new “down-line”. At that time they send them over to Catholic Forums to see if they can recruit fallen away Catholics or other lurking Protestants from other competing Protestant sects to start their own new breakaway sect.

James

 

[geraldffff]

Let me jump in to offer an opinion.
Popular speculation among the laity of The Catholic Church is that Protestant preachers function like multi-level marketing coaches and sponsors (e.g. like Amway or Mary Kay product dealers and the like). They are responsible for getting a new person up to speed to a rudimentary level of scripture knowledge so the new converts can in confidence start their own private interpretation and exegesis. But just as soon as a new member starts claiming that the Pastor is “non-biblical” or starts bucking the leadership they know that the contagion has matured and its time to cut these lose to start their own new “down-line”. At that time they send them over to Catholic Forums to see if they can recruit fallen away Catholics or other lurking Protestants from other competing Protestant sects to start their own new breakaway sect.

James

That is an interesting take on the subject and quite accurate from my experience of knowing my sister and brother in law starting their own sect when the out grew the one they were in.

 

[Pat_53]

“eat tree bark” I loved it!:clapping:

Pat

 

[Old_Scholar]

Really? How do you account that?

And which do you deem where those? Peter, I guess, who else?

the documents that later became the NT were certainly extant and circulating. So were over 300 other documents claiming to be from authentic sources.

Really? what “public” was that?

REally? Which “most” are those? John, perhaps?

I agree with you that brainwashing has certainly gone on. Where in the Bible is the table of contents of what should be in the bible?

The writers of the New Testament who were with Christ during His ministry were: Peter, John, James, Matthew and Mark.

Luke was a companion of Paul but he says he was not an eyewitness with Christ. Luke has been said to have been one of the 70 disciples however and it is obvious the writers of the gospel were with Christ. Mark was a companion of Peter and Peter at one time called him his son.

 

[Old_Scholar]

This is from your post #574 where you have again made the claim that your original questions were never answered.

Please be advised that your claim is simply a denial. After 540 plus posts, it is hard for me to imagine how anyone would make such an assertion. You are hurting whatever credibility that might otherwise be associated with your own position and arguments by doing this.

Well since I can’t find the answers to those questions, perhaps hyou could show me where they were answered, or maybe answer them yourselves. I’ll copy them one by one. Here is the first one that hasn’t been answered:

“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?”

Take your time…?

 

[Pax]

Well since I can’t find the answers to those questions, perhaps hyou could show me where they were answered, or maybe answer them yourselves. I’ll copy them one by one. Here is the first one that hasn’t been answered:

“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?”

Take your time…?

First of all, one can simply go to the Catechism of the Catholic Church to verify a given teaching. Likewise, all of the documents you refer to are available if one wishes to research them to do any verification that might be necessary. You can go to the Vatican website for the kind of data you’re refering to.

One more question answered.