SPLIT: What did Christ teach that wasn't written,and if it wasn't written how can you be sure He taught it?

[guanophore]

I’m no expert on this, and I don’t wish to answer for N2, but I certainly hope you don’t handle it like the Peter did with Ananias and Sapphira!!!

No, that is only for those who claim to be of the household of faith. The worst that can happen is that they would be treated like “Gentiles and Tax Collectors”.

 

[po18guy]

If a book was written by a prophet or apostle would that qualify as Scripture?

If the Church with authority tested it and proclaimed it scripture, yes. It has already done so twice.

 

[guanophore]

First, contrary to what Catholics teach,the Church was not built on Peter,The Church was founded on Christ,for He is the chief cornerstone.So the argument that the Catholic Church is the true Church,won’t work with me

The two are not opposing. when Jesus renamed Simon to Peter,He grafted Peter into His own “rockness”. He became one of the foundation stones, right next to Christ. This happened because the Father had revealed the Truth to Peter.

Second there are only two Churches that Christ found no fault with,based on what was taught,yet the Catholic Church does not teach this doctrine,and I would be willing to betTh they have no idea of what the doctrine is.

There is only one church. These communities were all part of the One Body of Christ. They are not different denominations.

How silly to say “they have no idea what the doctrine is”! Those passages were written by, for, and about Catholics.

The two Churches are Smyrna and Philidelphia and what they taught can be found in the book of Rev,you would do well to check them out.This is how you find a true Chuch,it must be based on what is taught aligned with scripture.With my soul at stake I Im positive of what the truth is as given to me by the Word of God,not man!

Well, this is better than nothing! I think what you don’t understand is what you have stated above. The Church was not built by man, but by God. It is His infallible nature that keeps the church pure and without error. How can something built upon the cornerstone of Divinity be false?

 

[po18guy]

First, contrary to what Catholics teach,the Church was not built on Peter,The Church was founded on Christ,for He is the chief cornerstone.So the argument that the Catholic Church is the true Church,won’t work with me

Second there are only two Churches that Christ found no fault with,based on what was taught,yet the Catholic Church does not teach this doctrine,and I would be willing to betTh they have no idea of what the doctrine is.

The two Churches are Smyrna and Philidelphia and what they taught can be found in the book of Rev,you would do well to check them out.This is how you find a true Chuch,it must be based on what is taught aligned with scripture.With my soul at stake I Im positive of what the truth is as given to me by the Word of God,not man!

I just love members of a church with a 100 year history coming in here with news flashes. You are clearly privately interpreting scripture, and blissfully ignorant of early church history. Read into it and come on back.

Are you sola scriptura? If so, you cannot understand Christ’s church using a fragment of the deposit of faith as your guide.

You do not keep the traditions which the Apostle Paul commanded. Your faith is incomplete, friend.

 

[NotWorthy]

First, contrary to what Catholics teach,the Church was not built on Peter,The Church was founded on Christ,for He is the chief cornerstone.So the argument that the Catholic Church is the true Church,won’t work with me

But what are Christ’s very own words? Why do you deny Him when He says, “on this rock I will build My Church”. Of course, Christ is the cornerstone. But that doesn’t mean He didn’t give some authority in His absence.

Second there are only two Churches that Christ found no fault with,based on what was taught,yet the Catholic Church does not teach this doctrine,and I would be willing to betTh they have no idea of what the doctrine is.

No, not what was taught. Christ found fault in the faithful, not the teachings.

The two Churches are Smyrna and Philidelphia and what they taught can be found in the book of Rev,you would do well to check them out.This is how you find a true Chuch,it must be based on what is taught aligned with scripture.With my soul at stake I Im positive of what the truth is as given to me by the Word of God,not man!

Good for you! Keep searching. Inevitably, you will find the Truth in His Church.

 

[n2thelight]

Which KJV do you stand by?

The deutero writings are not included in the NKJV.
The deutero writings were included in the 1611 KJV but WERE removed to reduce printing costs?! wiki- “The standardisation of the text of the Authorized Version after 1769 together with the technological development of Stereotype printing made it possible to produce Bibles in large print-runs at very low unit prices. For commercial publishers, editions of the Authorized Version without the Apocrypha reduced the cost.”
So what did God intend?

The original King James Bible (KJV / A.V.) without the Apocrypha

 

[Milliardo]

Let me put it to ya this way,I stand by the KJV ,so whatever books are included in there are the ones God intended to be

But the KJV is not the only Bible, and the KJV was never around when the final canon for the Bible was made at Carthage in 419 A.D.

Actually its from people who walk disorderly,the disciples were there with them setting the example,and since I don’t believe in aposolic sucessiion,

If you don’t believe in Apostolic Succession, who did the Apostles entrust the mission to continue the Gospel then?

To follow them now is to follow the written Word,not the Pope

This does violence to the passage, since at that time Paul said this, it was not written, and in fact the Gospels were not written yet; Paul and the Apostles taught orally. So are you saying that those who have not read the Gospels do not follow Christ?

 

[JLongoria]

First, contrary to what Catholics teach,the Church was not built on Peter,The Church was founded on Christ,for He is the chief cornerstone.So the argument that the Catholic Church is the true Church,won’t work with me

Second there are only two Churches that Christ found no fault with,based on what was taught,yet the Catholic Church does not teach this doctrine,and I would be willing to betTh they have no idea of what the doctrine is.

The two Churches are Smyrna and Philidelphia and what they taught can be found in the book of Rev,you would do well to check them out.This is how you find a true Chuch,it must be based on what is taught aligned with scripture.With my soul at stake I Im positive of what the truth is as given to me by the Word of God,not man!

It’s particularly hilarious when one suddenly understands that the Church in Smyrna was lead by Bishop Polycarp at the time St. John wrote Revelations. It’s even more hilarious when you consider that Polycarp was a Marianist - meaning he honored Mary as the mother of God in exactly the same way that the Catholic Church professes today.

The Churches at the time were aligned with Sacred Scripture. Sacred Old Testament Scripture; you’re a very silly person if you think that they used the New Testament.

And N2: you have yet to provide any examples of where the Catholic Church goes against Biblical teaching!

 

[JLongoria]

The original King James Bible (KJV / A.V.) without the Apocrypha

Lol, of course He did.

Which is why He came down and handed it directly to your Protestant forefathers?

Oh wait, fallible men put those books together. Based on your logic, since the Catholic Church is full of a bunch of humans and humans just can’t get it right even though Christ promised that He would send the Holy Spirit to us, you shouldn’t trust the King James bible either.

But that’d be going against everything you’ve been saying .

By the way: if you don’t believe in Apostolic Succession, maybe you should go read First and Second Timothy. Chalk full of “remain at Ephesus that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine” (cf. 1 Tim 1:3) and “entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (cf. 2 Tim. 2:2) and things of the like.

Funny that that would actually appear in Scripture where St. Paul is giving someone else the authority to teach.

 

[po18guy]

Question

What did Christ teach that was’nt written,and if it was’nt written how can you be sure He taught it

Christ always asked this question,have ye not read

Matthew 12:3
But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him;

Matthew 12:5
Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?

Matthew 19:4
And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

Matthew 22:31
But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,

Mark 12:10
And have ye not read this scripture; The stone which the builders rejected is become the head of the corner:

Mark 12:26
And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?

Luke 6:3
And Jesus answering them said, Have ye not read so much as this, what David did, when himself was an hungred, and they which were with him;

And that which He taught, is written

Anything else is a tradition of man

Hey n2, keep looking in that KJV of yours…all the way to Luke 3:18, John 20:30 and 21:25, and Acts 4:20. See? Your bible tells you that it is incomplete - essentially the sacred Cliff’s Notes of faith. But, since that’s all you have, and all you seem to want, get on your knees and thank The Holy Catholic Church, empowered by Christ, which produced and canonized the Catholic Bible for you to use. The Catholic Church gratefully accepts your humble thanks, and you are very welcome.

Every time you see a bible, you should get on your knees and thank God for His Catholic Church with the authority to canonize (that means approve) every word in the bible for you. While you’re down there, say a prayer for ol’ King James, since he changed its words, going against the bible itself.

Yes, sir! Without the Catholic bible to read, you would have nothing to believe. Since the bible is the source of your faith, I think you should** thank the Catholic Church** each morning before you get out of bed, because they tested scripture and presented the bible to you.

Amen, brother!

 

[po18guy]

I’m no expert on this, and I don’t wish to answer for N2, but I certainly hope you don’t handle it like the Peter did with Ananias and Sapphira!!!

A classic example of sin being held bound.

Christ’s peace.

 

[Thing]

The original King James Bible (KJV / A.V.) without the Apocrypha

But there is no such thing.
You said to me that God intended whatever books were in it to be there.
Now you tell me you reject that, you reject Gods intention?

The Authorized King James Version is an English translation of the Christian Bible begun in 1604 and first published in 1611 by the Church of England. The Great Bible was the first “authorized version” issued by the Church of England in the reign of King Henry VIII.[3] In January 1604, King James I of England convened the Hampton Court Conference where a new English version was conceived in response to the perceived problems of the earlier translations as detected by the Puritans, a faction within the Church of England.

The Original Authorized King James Version

“The king gave the translators instructions designed to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its beliefs about an ordained clergy. The translation was by 47 scholars, all of whom were members of the Church of England. In common with most other translations of the period, the New Testament was translated from the Textus Receptus (Received Text) series of the Greek texts. The Old Testament was translated from the Masoretic Hebrew text, while the Apocrypha were translated from the Greek Septuagint (LXX), except for 2 Esdras, which was translated from the Latin Vulgate. Thus, the Authorized Version included the Apocrypha.”

“The Authorized Version included the Apocrypha; all the books and sections of books present in the Latin Vulgate’s Old Testament — the translation of Jerome (Hierome) — but missing in the Hebrew. Indeed, the Book of Common Prayer specifies lectionary readings from the Apocrypha to be read in Morning and Evening Prayer in October.”

 

[Gamera]

First, contrary to what Catholics teach,the Church was not built on Peter,The Church was founded on Christ,for He is the chief cornerstone.So the argument that the Catholic Church is the true Church,won’t work with me

You’re mixing metaphors. God is the rock of our salvation (Ps. 62:2). Abraham is the rock from which the Hebrew people were hewn (Is. 51:1). Peter is the rock on which the Church is built (Mt 16:18). We can’t “mix and match.”

With my soul at stake I Im positive of what the truth is as given to me by the Word of God,not man!

Amen. That’s why I’m Catholic. The Bible plainly shows that the Apostles’ oral preaching was the word of God, not the word of man. “And we also give thanks constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers,” 1 Thes 2:13. The Apostles’ verbal preaching (sometimes called Sacred Tradition) is identified by Bible itself as “the word of God.” Sadly, this biblical truth is denied by those who believe in the man-made doctrine of sola scriptura, a concept utterly foreign to the Bible.

 

[placido]

Let me put it to ya this way,I stand by the KJV ,so whatever books are included in there are the ones God intended to be.

By standing by the KJV you follow the traditions of men started in 1611.

 

[po18guy]

Second there are only two Churches that Christ found no fault with,based on what was taught,yet the Catholic Church does not teach this doctrine,and I would be willing to betTh they have no idea of what the doctrine is.

If you don’t attend church in Smyrna or Philadelphia, are you sure you are Christian? You own words seem to condemn you.

 

[ryanoneil]

No, that is only for those who claim to be of the household of faith. The worst that can happen is that they would be treated like “Gentiles and Tax Collectors”.

And our Lord sat at table with them.

Thank God

 

[guanophore]

And our Lord sat at table with them.

Thank God

Amen!

He desires that all be saved, and come to the knowledge of the Truth.

 

[onenow1]

First, contrary to what Catholics teach,the Church was not built on Peter,The Church was founded on Christ,for He is the chief cornerstone.So the argument that the Catholic Church is the true Church,won’t work with me

Quote=OneNow1. guanophore’s post # 736, I believe has answered your objections adequately.

But lets see what Jesus has to say n2thelight.

Matthew 16

16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.
19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
20 Then he gave the disciples strict orders not to say to anyone he was the Christ.

After calling Peter blessed, calling him rock, giving him the keys to bind and loose; You believe Jesus was telling Peter, Peter you are an insignificant little pebble, I will build my church on you,whatever you bind will be bound, whatever you loose will be loosed. This kind of interpertation is obsurd in my humble opinion.

Peace, OneNow1

 

[TobyLue]

Originally Posted by n2thelight
The original King James Bible (KJV / A.V.) without the Apocrypha

I think that n2 is trying to say here is this: “If the KJV was good enough for St. Paul, it’s good enough for me, so there!!” Besides, we all know that Paul spoke the Queens language and so did Jesus. I think I remember reading that when Jesus was ascending into heaven he said to the Apostles, “Cheerio old chaps!
Why somebody would accept something some 1200 or so years after the original Bible was canonized and saying it’s the true bible is mind boggling.
Oh, and N2, how about tackling NotWorthy’s post #717.
Thanks and God Bless.

 

[ryanoneil]

First, contrary to what Catholics teach,the Church was not built on Peter,The Church was founded on Christ,for He is the chief cornerstone.So the argument that the Catholic Church is the true Church,won’t work with me

(Expanding on the posts by guanophore and onenow1)

You forgot to mention the first part of the verse n2thelight. The church is **built upon the **foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone (Eph 2:20).

No one denies that Christ is the chief cornerstone, but Jesus is the builder in Mat 16.
These are different analogies being used to say the same thing.

**And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. (Mat 16:18) **

Peace