SPLIT: Sola Scriptura debate

[BornAgainRN]

I don’t think you understood. How did you know that the Table of Contents in your bible are inspired? and which are not inspired? Do you know how were those books selected?, and do you know why protestants bibles have less books?

In the words of Haydock,

[BIBLEDRB]2 Timothy 3:16-17[/BIBLEDRB]

Because the books of the Bible were INDIVIDUALLY written by the Bible writers. The Table of Contents wasn’t written by the Bible writers, but added later, so that’s how we know the Table isn’t Inspired. With all due respect, why on earth would you use that example?

Yes, I know why Protestant books have less books. First, the ‘Hebrew Canon’ had the EXACT same books as the Protestant Bible, but they were arranged differently, & some books were combined. However, it lacked the Apocrypha. In fact, even when the early Catholic church put the Apocrypha in with the Bible, it was not unanimous by the Catholic church that the Apocrypha was at the same level as Scripture, because of it’s historical errors & theological contradictions with the Biblical books, such as Nebuchadnezzar being the King of Assyria, rather than Babylon; like using the liver of a dead fish to drive away demons; like the angel Raphael lying; the praying to & almsgiving to the dead, etc.

Also, the Catholic church didn’t ‘canonize’ the Apocrypha until the Reformers accused the Catholic church that some of their beliefs were not supported by Scripture, & all of a sudden, the Catholic church THEN decides to ‘canonize’ the Apocrypha. Coincidence??? By doing that, it shows that the Catholic church actually WAS concerned about ‘Sola Scriptura,’ otherwise, why would they ‘canonize’ the Apocrypha in response to the accusations of the Reformers, if they felt ‘church tradition’ could ‘supplement’ what couldn’t be found in Scripture?

 

[Patavium]

Because the books of the Bible were INDIVIDUALLY written by the Bible writers. The Table of Contents wasn’t written by the Bible writers, but added later, so that’s how we know the Table isn’t Inspired. With all due respect, why on earth would you use that example?

Yes, I know why Protestant books have less books. First, the ‘Hebrew Canon’ had the EXACT same books as the Protestant Bible, but they were arranged differently, & some books were combined. However, it lacked the Apocrypha. In fact, even when the early Catholic church put the Apocrypha in with the Bible, it was not unanimous by the Catholic church that the Apocrypha was at the same level as Scripture, because of it’s historical errors & theological contradictions with the Biblical books, such as Nebuchadnezzar being the King of Assyria, rather than Babylon; like using the liver of a dead fish to drive away demons; like the angel Raphael lying; the praying to & almsgiving to the dead, etc.

Also, the Catholic church didn’t ‘canonize’ the Apocrypha until the Reformers accused the Catholic church that some of their beliefs were not supported by Scripture, & all of a sudden, the Catholic church THEN decides to ‘canonize’ the Apocrypha. Coincidence??? By doing that, it shows that the Catholic church actually WAS concerned about ‘Sola Scriptura,’ otherwise, why would they ‘canonize’ the Apocrypha in response to the accusations of the Reformers, if they felt ‘church tradition’ could ‘supplement’ what couldn’t be found in Scripture?

There is no single verse in the entire Bible, whether that of Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Ethiopian Orthodox and Protestant, states which books belong to the Bible. This should pose a serious problem to Protestants and “Bible only” Christians who declare that (their) Bible is the only and highest authority. Unknowingly to them, the number of books of their Bible depends on their church statement of faith, or on their presumption, or their church councils, or, perhaps, “because my pastor told me so”. In other words they depend on authority outside the Bible to determine which books belong to the Bible. Then they make the Bible, with those predetermined books, the only and highest authority. This should imply we cannot have authority outside the Bible to determine which books belong to the Bible! This is a self-contradicting circular argument! Well, do Catholics have the same reason to know which books belong to the Bible, i.e. they were decided by the Catholic Church?

The birthday of the Church was the day of Pentecost when the Holy Spirit descended, as recorded in the book of Acts (Acts 2:1-4), which was not written in that time. We cannot know for sure when each book of New Testament was written. According to scholars the first one (2 Thessalonians) was written, perhaps, in c. 50 or 51 AD and the first Gospel was written after 70AD. This means the Church had been in existence for around two decades before we had the first written New Testament book; and around four decades before the first Gospel was written and, as we will see later, before the Jews closed the canon of their Scripture.

Christ’ words were first circulated orally and later, some were put in written form in the Gospels. Thus from the Gospel according to Matthew we know that Christ intended to give His apostles authority over His Church. He gave Peter (Matthew 16:19) and later all apostles (Matthew 18:18) the authority to bind and to loose. Whatever they bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatever they loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. In Greek “bound and loosed in heaven” is in (passive) perfect tense, while “bind and loose on earth” is in (active) aorist tense. Unlike that of English, Greek perfect tense indicates continuity of completed past action. This means what Peter and the apostles bind or loose shall follow the ones that have already been bound or loosed in heaven, obviously by God – it is not in reverse as some might think.

Catholics believe that the apostles passed the same authority to their successors, the bishops – the so called apostolic succession. Both (Western) Catholic and (Eastern) Orthodox Churches claim apostolic succession. Apostolic succession belongs to what is known as Tradition (with capital T) – you cannot find it in the Bible. But we know Christ promised His apostles to be with them to the end of age (Matthew 28:20), to send the Holy Spirit to be with them forever (John 14:16), to teach them all things and to remind them whatsoever He said to them (John 14:26); and that the gates of Hades shall not prevail against His Church (Matthew 16:18). New Testament nowhere says those divine promises are valid only in the first three hundred years, i.e. until Roman emperor Constantine legalized Christianity in 313 AD or in the first fifteen centuries, i.e. until Reformation. Having the same authority, the Pope and the bishops (in union with Him) have the power to bind and to loose and whatever they bind or loose does not come from themselves but it has been already bound and loosed in heaven. No wonder Paul referred the Church as the pillar and bulwark of truth (1 Timothy 3:15) – certainly he was not writing about church (or churches) that came into existence in sixteenth century or later. This is the reason why Catholics believe it is the Church with the apostolic origin has the power to determine which books belong to the Bible. The Church is not above the Bible but is under the guidance of Holy Spirit promised by Christ Himself!

Why it took the Church sixteen centuries to promulgate Canon (list of inspired books) of the Bible? The same canon was declared in provincial council in Hippo, North Africa in 393 AD, reaffirmed at Councils of Carthage, also in North Africa, in 397 AD and in 419 AD. Christians in the first three centuries did not have closed canon – they disagree with each other on which books belong to the Bible, both Old and New Testaments. The so-called disputed books of Old Testament were Esther and deuterocanonical books while those of New Testament were Hebrews, James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John and Revelation. The earliest list with the same twenty-seven books as in present day Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Protestant’ New Testament appeared in 367 AD [7]. List of Old Testament books which agrees with Catholic Bible appeared in 382 AD [8] while the one that agrees with Protestant Old Testament appeared in 391 AD [9]. Council of Trent in 1546 is the ecumenical council that explicitly promulgated canonicity of seventy-three books of Catholic Bible, though the same list of Old Testament books also appeared in ecumenical council of Basel-Ferrara-Florence-Rome (Session 11 on 4 February 1442). The Eastern Orthodox Church declared their canon of Bible in their synod held at Jerusalem in 1672. For Protestants who belong to Reformed Church, Belgic Confession Article 4 (in 1561) and Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter 1 (in 1647), declared canonicity of sixty-six books of their Bible.

vivacatholic.wordpress.com/2012/02/05/who-has-the-correct-number-of-books-in-the-bible/

 

[Pheonix]

Again, no it’s not ‘circular reasoning’ because in order for it to be circular reasoning, the writers & author of Scripture would have to be the SAME PERSON, which they AREN’T. The writers are sinful human beings. The Author is the sinless Jesus Christ.

What, wait? No, it does not. Circular reasoning is defined as “a logical fallacy which the reasoner begins with what he or she is trying to end up with.” This applies to anything and everything.

If I say “I am right about the calculus problem because I say I am right,” then I’m committing circular reasoning.

If my friend John says “Alex would make a good class president because he says he’ll make a good class president,” then John is committing circular reasoning.

Likewise, if you say “Scripture is true because Scripture says it’s true,” then you’re committing circular reasoning.

A Catholic who uses a Catholic source is NOT being objective, because the source is not neutral.

How? By providing a Catholic source talking about Mary’s perpetual virginity, we’re providing you with additional arguments for Mary being Ever-Virgin. In a debate about whether Mary’s perpetual virginity is true or not, providing arguments for both statements is VERY objective.

Then, it’s up to you whether choose to read those passages & draw out the family tree or not, which demonstrates YOUR objectivity.

Except, as I said before, even if I do draw out the family tree from the information you provided in your OP, there’s still a problem: in order for your conclusions to be correct, you must be interpreting the verses correctly. How do I know your conclusions, based on your interpretations, are valid?

Well…here’s an idea: write out the Bible passages & see for YOURSELF.

I’d be careful, if I were you, this can be viewed as demeaning.

And, again, it’s NOT ‘my’ interpretation. I am providing Bible passages & drawing conclusions based on the BIBLE

But it IS your interpretation! In order to “draw conclusions based on the Bible [verses],” you HAVE to INTERPRET them. The Bible is written in something called “language,” and language requires varying degree of interpretation. This is especially the case with older literature like the Bible.

Even if it wasn’t “your interpretation,” a problem still remains: how can I be so sure your conclusions are valid?

• not on what HUMAN church leaders tell me, who are capable of being wrong…yes…even about the Bible.

Except my Church leader, Pope Benedict XVI, is infallible on matters of faith and morals. Jesus said the “gates of Hell will never prevail against the Church.” Since the Catholic Church is the true Church founded by Christ on St. Peter in 33 C. E., I can rest assured knowing that the Pope cannot commit error with respect to faith and morals.

I guess what I can’t understand is why people refuse to write out the ‘family tree’ using Scripture verses?

Because we HAVE to be SURE that your interpretations and conclusions based on the information you provided in the OP is correct and valid.

If a person is so confident that their church’s position is true, then why the resistance?

There’s no resistance from us. We have been providing you argument after argument as to why your OP’s conclusions and interpretations are not valid and correct. You have yet to properly refute our arguments.

Write it out & see what you’ll find

I HAVE written your supposed family tree out. However, I cannot accept your family tree without knowing that your conclusions and interpretations are correct and valid. Unless you do otherwise, your OP’s “family tree” proves nothing.

…unless you’re concerned that what you’ll find contradicts the ‘perpetual virginity of Mary,’ which would mean that this Catholic belief about Mary is wrong.

Are you serious? There have been tons of threads on Mary’s perpetual virginity made by people who vehemently disagree with the teaching. Heck, the people in those threads even provided much stronger arguments than what you’ve tried to put forth in this thread. However, out of all those threads, none of them have been able to disprove Mary being Ever-Virgin.

 

[adrift]

dead, etc.

Also, the Catholic church didn’t ‘canonize’ the Apocrypha until the Reformers accused the Catholic church that some of their beliefs were not supported by Scripture, & all of a sudden, the Catholic church THEN decides to ‘canonize’ the Apocrypha. Coincidence??? By doing that, it shows that the Catholic church actually WAS concerned about ‘Sola Scriptura,’ otherwise, why would they ‘canonize’ the Apocrypha in response to the accusations of the Reformers, if they felt ‘church tradition’ could ‘supplement’ what couldn’t be found in Scripture?

Not historically accurate.

 

[Church_Militant]

Because the books of the Bible were INDIVIDUALLY written by the Bible writers. The Table of Contents wasn’t written by the Bible writers, but added later, so that’s how we know the Table isn’t Inspired. With all due respect, why on earth would you use that example?

Yes, I know why Protestant books have less books. First, the ‘Hebrew Canon’ had the EXACT same books as the Protestant Bible, but they were arranged differently, & some books were combined. However, it lacked the Apocrypha. In fact, even when the early Catholic church put the Apocrypha in with the Bible, it was not unanimous by the Catholic church that the Apocrypha was at the same level as Scripture, because of it’s historical errors & theological contradictions with the Biblical books, such as Nebuchadnezzar being the King of Assyria, rather than Babylon; like using the liver of a dead fish to drive away demons; like the angel Raphael lying; the praying to & almsgiving to the dead, etc.

Also, the Catholic church didn’t ‘canonize’ the Apocrypha until the Reformers accused the Catholic church that some of their beliefs were not supported by Scripture, & all of a sudden, the Catholic church THEN decides to ‘canonize’ the Apocrypha. Coincidence??? By doing that, it shows that the Catholic church actually WAS concerned about ‘Sola Scriptura,’ otherwise, why would they ‘canonize’ the Apocrypha in response to the accusations of the Reformers, if they felt ‘church tradition’ could ‘supplement’ what couldn’t be found in Scripture?

That’s not true either.

The canon was set by the Catholic Church in the following councils which far predate Trent. You have just used a common a-C argument that you have been deceived by by modern men. If they are wrong on this, then how much else have they misled you with?

Council of Rome

“Now indeed we must treat of the divine scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book; Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Joshua [Son of] Nave, one book; Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; Kings, four books [that is, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings]; Paralipomenon [Chronicles], two books; Psalms, one book; Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book, Ecclesiastes, one book, [and] Canticle of Canticles [Song of Songs], one book; likewise Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus [Sirach], one book . . . . Likewise the order of the historical [books]: Job, one book; Tobit, one book; Esdras, two books [Ezra and Nehemiah]; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; Maccabees, two books” (Decree of Pope Damasus [A.D. 382]).

Council of Hippo

“[It has been decided] that besides the canonical scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the canonical scriptures are
as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, and a portion of the Psalms], the twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books . . .” (Canon 36 [A.D. 393]).

Council of Carthage III

“[It has been decided] that nothing except the canonical scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine scriptures. But the canonical scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon, two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon, twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees . . .” (Canon 47 [A.D. 397]).

 

[Rich_C]

Because the books of the Bible were INDIVIDUALLY written by the Bible writers. The Table of Contents wasn’t written by the Bible writers, but added later, so that’s how we know the Table isn’t Inspired. With all due respect, why on earth would you use that example?

He was inferring that their is no inspired list of which books ought to be included. The Church decided. Ultimately, Protestant rely on the Church to know that their Bible is inspired.

Yes, I know why Protestant books have less books. First, the ‘Hebrew Canon’ had the EXACT same books as the Protestant Bible, but they were arranged differently, & some books were combined. However, it lacked the Apocrypha.

The ‘Hebrew Canon’ dates to after the destruction of the temple and the separation of the Church from the synagogue. In the Apostle’s lifetime, the Church used the Septuagint, not the Hebrew Canon. I think this decisively falls in favor of the Church’s canon.

Also, the Catholic church didn’t ‘canonize’ the Apocrypha until the Reformers accused the Catholic church that some of their beliefs were not supported by Scripture, & all of a sudden, the Catholic church THEN decides to ‘canonize’ the Apocrypha.

The Church also didn’t declare the doctrine of the Trinity in a formal council until somebody challenged it. The Church makes official statements reactively, when things it already held to be true are challenged.

By doing that, it shows that the Catholic church actually WAS concerned about ‘Sola Scriptura,’ otherwise, why would they ‘canonize’ the Apocrypha in response to the accusations of the Reformers, if they felt ‘church tradition’ could ‘supplement’ what couldn’t be found in Scripture?

The Church didn’t buy into sola scriptura, it just needed to tell people they were wrong, to try and save their souls. Your logic escapes me.

Also, do not underrate Tradition. It is equally important as scripture, not only a supplement. Both are the testimony of the Apostles and their followers about Our Lord’s teachings, and together they comprise the complete revelations of Christ.

 

[Pheonix]

The Table of Contents wasn’t written by the Bible writers, but added later, so that’s how we know the Table isn’t Inspired.

But that’s the point: you cannot prove the Bible canon from Scripture alone. You therefore have no way of knowing what is inspired and what is not, as there were 400+ books circulating around after Jesus ascending into Heaven. All of them claimed to be inspired by God.

You believe the Bible canon because of the pronouncement made about the Bible canon, which was made by the Catholic Church in 384 C. E.

Yes, I know why Protestant books have less books.

Then you know that during the Reformation, Protestants began to reject the deuterocanon, which was part of the Bible since the Bible was first made in 384 C. E.

However, it lacked the Apocrypha.

This is an egregious argument against the deuterocanon. If we say the deuterocanon is not inspired because the Jews rejected it, we must also say that the New Testament isn’t inspired because the Jews reject that also.

In fact, even when the early Catholic church put the Apocrypha in with the Bible, it was not unanimous by the Catholic church that the Apocrypha was at the same level as Scripture,

It was pretty unanimous. There was only one or two Early Church Fathers that didn’t believe the deuterocanon was inspired. That does not, however, mean that they are not inspired.

because of it’s historical errors

This is not relevant. Historical accuracy was not a criterion for the inspiration of the Old Testament books; we have no way of knowing what in the Old Testament is historically accurate or not.

theological contradictions with the Biblical books,

Like what?

the praying to & almsgiving to the dead, etc.

Praying to the dead does not contradict Scripture.

Also, the Catholic church didn’t ‘canonize’ the Apocrypha until the Reformers accused the Catholic church that some of their beliefs were not supported by Scripture, & all of a sudden, the Catholic church THEN decides to ‘canonize’ the Apocrypha.

This is false. The Church already officially accepted the deuterocanon. The deuterocanon was already accepted since 384 C. E. The Council of Trent merely reiterated what the Church already held to be truth.

Coincidence???

Nope, because what the Church did at the Council of Trent with respect to the deuterocanon (i.e. reiterating the deuterocanon as part of the original biblical canon compiled in 384 C. E.) is what the Church does when someone challenges an already long-held belief of the Church.

why would they ‘canonize’ the Apocrypha in response to the accusations of the Reformers, if they felt ‘church tradition’ could ‘supplement’ what couldn’t be found in Scripture?

You obviously don’t understand how the Church handles things when people challenge her long-held beliefs.

When people challenged the idea that God was Triune, a belief held since the Church was founded in 33 C. E., the Church reiterated the teaching by proclaiming it dogma.

When people challenged the idea of the Marian beliefs at different points in history, beliefs the Church has believed since 33 C. E., she reiterated the teachings by proclaiming them dogma.

Likewise, when the Reformers challenged the deuterocanon, something was part of the biblical canon since the first Bible was compiled in 384 C. E., the Church reiterated the belief.

The point is that the Church reiterates her beliefs when they are beliefs. In order for this to be true, the beliefs must have already been believed for quite some time.

 

[tabycat]

BornAgainRN
Using tha argument that if a book says it’s inspired, then it’s true. Excample, the Book of Morman says it is inspired there should become Morman? Just a thought.

 

[SonCatcher]

The first one or two generations of Christians had no NT scripture.

We see from reading the Prologue to Luke (Luke 1:1-4) that “Theophilus”, who can be thought of as a type for all Christians, learned nothing, zero, zip, nada from Luke’s Gospel. Luke wrote his Gospel only to confirm the oral Apostolic teaching that Theophilus had already received.

Excellent! The Gospels were written to verify key facts that the converts had already learned. Once key facts were confirmed, the believer would have no reason to doubt other facts they received orally (Real Presence, necessity of confession, etc).

“All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness.” - 2 Timothy 3:16

It isn’t circular reasoning, because although men ‘wrote’ the Bible, Jesus was its Author Who ‘God-breathed’ (Inspired) as the writers were penning the Scriptures. It would only be circular reasoning if the writer & the author who said ‘All Scripture is Inspired by God’ was the same person.

Actually, Paul was only referring to the 46 books of the Septuagint (he could not refer to the Masoretic Text nor any part of the New Testament as they did not exist yet).

Again, no it’s not ‘circular reasoning’ because in order for it to be circular reasoning, the writers & author of Scripture would have to be the SAME PERSON, which they AREN’T. The writers are sinful human beings. The Author is the sinless Jesus Christ.

That explains why all these books attributed to so many different authors have exactly the same style and grammar and use the same words for everything!
/sarcasm

Seriously. Do you honestly believe that Jesus seized control of their bodies and forced their hands to turn out exactly the sequence of characters they did? <wow! my hand just started moving and look what came out>

A Catholic who uses a Catholic source is NOT being objective, because the source is not neutral. It would be like me linking you to a non-Catholic source to try convince you that Jesus had half-brothers & half-sisters. What I have done in order to not use ‘circular reasoning’ is use a NEUTRAL source, we can ALL agree on - the Holy Bible. Then, it’s up to you whether choose to read those passages & draw out the family tree or not, which demonstrates YOUR objectivity.

Examining the Bible with an a priori conclusion is fallacious. Honest dialog requires examining all the facts with an open mind.

Fact 1: The early Christians believed that Jesus was the only child of Mary.
Fact 2: The Gospels refer to certain other persons as brothers of Jesus.

How do we reconcile those? Calling the early Christians liars or fools immediately casts doubt on the validity of the Gospels (who wants a book written by liars, after all).

I guess what I can’t understand is why people refuse to write out the ‘family tree’ using Scripture verses? If a person is so confident that their church’s position is true, then why the resistance? Write it out & see what you’ll find…unless you’re concerned that what you’ll find contradicts the ‘perpetual virginity of Mary,’ which would mean that this Catholic belief about Mary is wrong.

The problem is that there isn’t enough information. We don’t have a 1 Chronicles of the New Testament (you know - chapters upon chapters of “begats” for every person involved). We only have a few named relations and no way at all to know the parents’ or children’s names for anyone except the “sons of Zebedee” or the “father of Alexander and Rufus” and very few others. We can’t really confirm aliases, either. There is no way to know for certain whether Salome is Mary’s sister or they were two separate women who just found themselves named in different accounts.

 

[JustaServant]

What I have done in order to not use ‘circular reasoning’ is use a NEUTRAL source, we can ALL agree on - the Holy Bible.

Who told you the Bible is a neutral source?
The Bible you have, that your preacher has when he preaches this drivel, is a Catholic work. It was put together by the Catholic Church, written by Catholics: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Jude, James, and Peter.
Why are you using a Book the Catholic Church gave you to disprove Catholic doctrine?
Why would the Catholic Church put together a Book that disproves thier own doctrine?
That makes no sense.

 

[BornAgainRN]

I quote from the Bible, I correct & reproof using Scripture, my faith comes from hearing the word of Christ, I place my faith in Jesus alone for my salvation, which is demonstrated in my works, while you ‘clutch’ to your traditions.

 

[KP3243]

I quote from the Bible, I correct & reproof using Scripture, my faith comes from hearing the word of Christ, I place my faith in Jesus alone for my salvation, which is demonstrated in my works, while you ‘clutch’ to your traditions.

The Bible says to not use faith alone although Martin Luther’s German translation of Romans 3:28 added the word alone but the original Greek text that the world used until the reformation does not have the word alone in its text and the Bible specifically warns against using personal interpretation of scripture. You can’t pick and choose which parts of the text you want to follow and you most certainly can’t take things out of context and ignore the rest of scripture like how protestants accuse Catholics of worshiping statues which is insane, extremely hurtful and insulting that they would accuse and bear false witness against Catholics as if Catholics would even dare entertain into thought worshiping a piece of marble and confuse it with God Himself. And why would you shun the tradition that Jesus himself taught the apostles and that the Catholic Church continues to follow and that anyone calling themself a Christian for 1600 years followed? I mean the introduction Luke has in his Gospel clearly states that he and Theophilus have already been taught about Jesus and his Church and clearly that would so obviously pre-date Luke’s Gospel and the Bible “just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word.” Ever wonder why Catholics vestments are so different than protestants? Each vestment symbolizes a spiritual dimension of the priesthood, with roots in the very origins of the Church. The Catholic standard is that if the apostles were to return to earth today they would easily recognize the Church they set up.

 

[JustaServant]

I quote from the Bible, I correct & reproof using Scripture, my faith comes from hearing the word of Christ, I place my faith in Jesus alone for my salvation, which is demonstrated in my works, while you ‘clutch’ to your traditions.

You would not have known Christ had it not been for the Catholic Church, you would not have a Bible had it not been for the Catholic Church. You have much to owe the Church of your Baptism because She took the effort give you the Sacraments you so carelessly disregard.
As for ‘clutching’. The Bible and Tradition have not now nor have ever been in competition, so why separate the two? We cling to Christ crucified (as the Catholic St. Paul told us).
Here’s what you need to do:
Read, read, read. The Bible, the Early Church Fathers, Church history.
***Learn to question, and when you find what you think is the answer, question that.
Beware of anyone, ANYONE, (especially if he is a “preacher”) who tells you NEVER to question.
Do that, and ***I guarantee the Holy Spirit will lead you right back to the Church of your Baptism.
Why do you think I put this quote in a few posts of mine?
***“When you’re seven years old and you run away from home, it’s a lot of fun at 12 noon. But by 6pm it’s not fun anymore, you want to return home.” ***
Because I was young like you once, lost in the same type of anti-Catholic propaganda. I ran away, but I came home.
And you will someday too.

 

[Pheonix]

Ann…the point is to show where a Christian’s authority lies.

A Christian’s sole authority is not Scripture, contrary to what you may believe. Scripture never says that Scripture alone is the final authority for a believer.

Oh, and don’t try and cite 2 Timothy 3:16 on me. That verse does not say Scripture is the final authority for a Christian; it says Scripture is profitable. Profitable does not equal sufficient alone. Further, the Scripture Paul is referring to in 2 Timothy 3:16 is the Old Testament books. Therefore, unless you want to argue that the Old Testament alone is sufficient, you have no argument in 2 Timothy 3:16.

For Christians, the Word of God is sufficient & doesn’t have to be added to. For others, God’s Word isn’t enough, & Jesus’ finished work on the cross isn’t enough.

It’s a good thing this doesn’t apply to Catholics, who have faithfully been following the teachings of Jesus Christ since 33 C. E.!

 

[SonCatcher]

Ann…the point is to show where a Christian’s authority lies. For Christians, the Word of God is sufficient & doesn’t have to be added to. For others, God’s Word isn’t enough, & Jesus’ finished work on the cross isn’t enough.

This Word where our authority lies is the Word named in John 1. It does not mean a book at all.

 

[Church_Militant]

I’m not ‘Scripture Pope,’ nor I am dictating what to believe or telling people to ignore Scripture. The problem is that the Catholic church confuses who the various James’, Mary’s, etc. are, in order support the tradition that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus. Mary needed to be a virgin to fulfill OT prophecy, & to prove that He was the promised Messiah by His birth being miraculous - being born of a virgin. Everything else is merely invented by the Church. Instead of the Catholic church using Scripture to correct it’s theology about Mary, the church starts with the theology (borrowed from the false infancy ‘gospel’ of James) & ‘personally’ interprets Scripture to support its theology. The first method is Biblical, which is what I am doing, the second is not, which is what the Catholic church has done.

Really? Again, where does the Bible specifically lay any such claim to being the authority you give it? So far you have ignored that question, and I suspect that’s because you cannot support it from the scriptures. (In fact, I know you can’t.)

The same belief that made it illegal to translate the Bible into English.

Citation of source needed there. Sadly, there isn’t going to be one because said allegation never happened. There were Catholic scriptures in English long before the Protestants produced any. Heck, the Douay-Rheims Bible came out in 1609. Two years before the much vaunted King James Version. http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h244/corona_stellarum/Smilies/failstamp.png

The same belief that said that you had to be Catholic to go to Heaven prior to Vatican II, but afterwards said you can be of another religion that rejects Christ, & still go to Heaven based on your works.

Gross misrepresentation of Catholic teaching. It will help if you do your own homework.

The same belief that taught limbo was a real place, but now says it just a ‘theory,’ despite Scripture saying that ALL babies go to Heaven if they die, regardless if they’ve been baptized or not.

Was never a doctrine and so is irrelevant. Furthermore, you’ll have to supply scriptural evidence which specifically teaches that bolded part, which I happen to know that you cannot do. I thought you said you were a 'Bible only" guy. Good luck with this one though.

No thanks. I’ll stick to what God’s Word actually says - Jesus had half-brothers & half-sisters.

Says you…though the facts show they were step siblings. Hate it for you.

Ann…the point is to show where a Christian’s authority lies. For Christians, the Word of God is sufficient & doesn’t have to be added to. For others, God’s Word isn’t enough, & Jesus’ finished work on the cross isn’t enough.

If you say so, but so far all you’ve done is offer twisted interpretations of verses and misstatements about Catholic teaching. Most folks will soon conclude that you don’t really know what you’re talking about. The Bible never lays claim to the all sufficient authority that you assert for it and you have yet to supply a passage that specifically teaches that. How come?

Moreover, again you allege a supposed Catholic belief that is not in fact true. Here’s how a Catholic is saved.

Repentance and baptism (Acts 2:38 & 22:16 and John 3:1-21) and then following Christ, (John 14:15, Matthew 10:38, 16:24, & 25:31-46, Mark 8:34, Luke 9:23 and Revelation 3:5) which is a lifelong journey and not the oversimplified “plan of salvation” as presented by some non-Catholic communities.

I quote from the Bible, I correct & reproof using Scripture, my faith comes from hearing the word of Christ, I place my faith in Jesus alone for my salvation, which is demonstrated in my works, while you ‘clutch’ to your traditions.

I think someone else has already shown that you are dead wrong about Sacred Tradition according to St. Paul in the New Testament.

Here’s a couple of other things you need to think about.
2nd Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

I love this verse! I don’t suppose that you’ve noticed here that St. Paul does not say to St. Timothy. “Study the Bible”, or “Study the scriptures”, and so based on what this verse says (and the context nowhere changes this…) then sacred Tradition is included in what Paul is telling Timothy to study. In this he would be following the apostles.

Look at these verses from the letter of St. Jude, the next to last book in the New Testament. (You do accept Jude as inspired canon of scripture, right?)

Jude Chapter 1:9: But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, disputed about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a reviling judgment upon him, but said, “The Lord rebuke you.”

Where is that found in the Old Testament? Please show me chapter and verse.

Jude Chapter 1:14: It was of these also that Enoch in the seventh generation from Adam prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord came with his holy myriads, 15: to execute judgment on all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness which they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.”

Where is that in the Old Testament please? Again, I need chapter and verse?
2nd Timothy Chapter 3:8: As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men of corrupt mind and counterfeit faith;

The first 1st is quoting The Assumption of Moses. Not the Old Testament, yet the apostle Jude quotes it as a fact of belief.

The 2nd is quoting The Book of Enoch. Not the Old Testament, yet the apostle Jude quotes it as a fact of belief.

The 3rd is quoting the Book of Jannes and Jambres and not the Old Testament. (Go ahead and look…their names are nowhere found in the OT!), yet here again…St. Paul refers to something as fact that is not stated in the inspired canon. So then… he is clearly telling Timothy to study both scripture and traditional sources, since that is clearly shown here as apostolic practice.

So much for the idea that the apostles taught Sola Scriptura.

 

[KP3243]

I quote from the Bible, I correct & reproof using Scripture, my faith comes from hearing the word of Christ, I place my faith in Jesus alone for my salvation, which is demonstrated in my works, while you ‘clutch’ to your traditions.

You act like these traditions aren’t Jesus’s traditions. THEY ARE and why would anyone want to even change them? Jesus was the one that taught them to his apostles who then taught them to people like Luke who wrote a Gospel. And how exactly do you believe the Bible is the Word of God because Matthew doesn’t end his Gospel saying be sure to check out Mark because he is divinely inspired too? You have accepted Catholic tradition because we believe the Bible is divinely inspired. The Church also assembled the numerous writings and rejected those they believe were not divinely inspired.

 

[snarflemike]

“All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness.” - 2 Timothy 3:16

It isn’t circular reasoning, because although men ‘wrote’ the Bible, Jesus was its Author Who ‘God-breathed’ (Inspired) as the writers were penning the Scriptures. It would only be circular reasoning if the writer & the author who said ‘All Scripture is Inspired by God’ was the same person.

OF COURSE it’s circular reasoning. We agree that all scripture is inspired by God, but how do you know what is scripture? If I write on a 3x5 card “this is scripture” will you then tape it into your bible?

Tell me how you know, using scripture alone, that the books in the bible are scripture. Or, if you appeal to another authority, tell me how you know that authority is valid.

 

[lna419]

It is only ‘personal interpretation’ if I use the words ‘I think,’ ‘I believe,’ ‘this is my opinion,’ ‘this is the view of church,’ etc. I have not done this. All I have done is support the BIBLICAL view the Jesus had half-brothers & half-sisters by providing SCRIPTURE & what the words mean in the original Biblcally-Inspired languages. I WANT you to think, which means not basing YOUR faith on the ‘personal interpretations’ of others (including church leaders), but on what God has revealed to your through His Holy Inspired Word. If you want to base your faith on YOUR PERSONAL interpretation, fine. But, don’t say that I am ‘personally interpreting’ Scripture, because I am NOT doing that. I am understanding it from a ‘plain sense’ from Scripture - not on what other people ‘think’ it means.

So your telling me that one day you decided to pick up the bible to read and came up with those conclusions yourself without any help from anyone. Without any outside influence at all. Without any outside source what so ever except the bible. You must be a genius when it comes to theology. It sounds like your as good as the disciples who needed guidance from Jesus and the Holy Spirit, and they still didn’t get it right the first time around.

The ethiopian eunuch had Phillip who was guided by the Holy Spirit help him interpret scripture for him.

Phillip asked if he understood what he was reading in Isaiah and the eunuch says how can I without anyone to guide me.

The bible is all about interpretation. The question is who has the AUTHORITY to interpret?

Peter says that Pauls letters are hard to understand. You need help and interpretation. Question again is by who’s authority?

Would you agree that Jesus has Authority?

If so, then you must believe John 20: 20-23.
As my father has sent me so I send you. The question you have to is how did the father send Jesus? He was sent with authority from God. So the diciples are sent with authority.

The authority to interpret scripture.

You said all you did is support the BIBLICAL view the Jesus had half-brothers & half-sisters by providing SCRIPTURE & what the words mean in the original Biblcally-Inspired languages. How do you do that without interpretation or the use of someone else’s interpretation? You can’t. If you can’t then you have to ask yourself if those interpretations are correct and by what authority.

 

[lna419]

“All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness.” - 2 Timothy 3:16

It isn’t circular reasoning, because although men ‘wrote’ the Bible, Jesus was its Author Who ‘God-breathed’ (Inspired) as the writers were penning the Scriptures. It would only be circular reasoning if the writer & the author who said ‘All Scripture is Inspired by God’ was the same person.

How did the early christian in the apostolic era no this before those words to timothy were written. How could they all know that Paul was speaking of the Bibile.

The fact is they did not. You are taking those words out of context. If you look at the earlier verses, you see a different picture being painted by Paul.

2Tim 3: 14-17 (KJV)
14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;

15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Paul speaks of the Old testament being scripture, not the New Testament. He tells timothy to remember what he has been taught from scripture as a child. There was no NT when Timothy was a child.

That’s what my catholic brother means by circular reasoning. You can’t take the book itself to prove itself. You have to put yourself back in time to the apostolic era and think about all your arguments. If you used those arguments back then they wouldn’t work.