The useless Bible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter John_one_one
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

John_one_one

Guest
Every new age philosophy along with scores of others make every effort to topple the bible. A Course In Miracles one of the larger more popular new age doctrines, promoted by Opera on TV like to reference Jesus as a model but they never listen or mention His words, except for maybe “the kingdom of heaven is within you”. Just as the others “non believer and new agers” do, the bible is nonsense to them. To me its no surprise that non believers minimize the bible but as far as I can tell, this forum is full of catholics that at every point also profess the bible is useless beyond simply pointing to the authority of its church and magistrate. Its useless without the church to tell you what it says, its also repeated many times that its incomplete. It looks to me like the catholic church and non Jesus believers both have a common goal, get rid of the bible.
What say you?
 
John_one_one said:
Every new age philosophy along with scores of others make every effort to topple the bible. A Course In Miracles one of the larger more popular new age doctrines, promoted by Opera on TV like to reference Jesus as a model but they never listen or mention His words, except for maybe “the kingdom of heaven is within you”. Just as the others “non believer and new agers” do, the bible is nonsense to them. To me its no surprise that non believers minimize the bible but as far as I can tell, this forum is full of catholics that at every point also profess the bible is useless beyond simply pointing to the authority of its church and magistrate. Its useless without the church to tell you what it says, its also repeated many times that its incomplete. It looks to me like the catholic church and non Jesus believers both have a common goal, get rid of the bible.
What say you?
Click to expand...
That is totally false and total blasphemy!!! I read my Bible daily. Catholics are encourage to read the Bible. You can’t have Sacred Scripture without Sacred Tradition and Magisterium. It works just like the Trinity. God gave us the word, the word taught himself and the Holy Spirit interprets it for us. Where ever the Father is the Son and Holy Spirit is there as well. One must read scripture and not take it out of context, read it in light of Sacred Tradition and not open it to private interpretation. Scripture passages to prove my point 2 Thessalonians 2:15 (Douay-Rheims verse 14 in modern Bibles). This proves Sacred Tradition. 2 Peter 1:20-21 proves Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and Magisterial teaching. I would retract the misconception statements made against the Catholic Church if I were you.
 
To clarify it a bit the catholic church has added many necessities not clearly found in scripture for salvation, the rosary, the office of Mary and others that dont need mentioning.
From a person simply looking and comparing, what is the difference in adding to scripture from say the LDS Joseph Smith that placed seers stones in a hat to give us the book of mormon? For that matter once you start where do you stop? why not just combine anything you like? In doing so dont you lose the testimony of the bible its self and become your own witness?

When the bible is used to defend others faith that does not walk in step with the catholic church the interpretation is critiqued and the bible verse is ignored or church tradition over rules the first witness of the letters of the NT. Any lawyer knows that a witness to the actual event has more credibility than a witness that only heard what the first witness said or even the third witness that only heard what the second witness told him. You can see that the progression of statements from the early church fathers is played out the message looks less and less like the first letter of the NT. It been carried so far by the catholic church that the very bible “first witness letter” is of no value IMO. In a nut shell the CC teaches that it is the fullness necessary for salvation in spite of what the bible says to other readers, in these cases the bible and the reader are at fault.
 
John_one_one said:
To clarify it a bit the catholic church has added many necessities not clearly found in scripture for salvation, the rosary, the office of Mary and others that dont need mentioning.
From a person simply looking and comparing, what is the difference in adding to scripture from say the LDS Joseph Smith that placed seers stones in a hat to give us the book of mormon? For that matter once you start where do you stop? why not just combine anything you like? In doing so dont you lose the testimony of the bible its self and become your own witness?

When the bible is used to defend others faith that does not walk in step with the catholic church the interpretation is critiqued and the bible verse is ignored or church tradition over rules the first witness of the letters of the NT. Any lawyer knows that a witness to the actual event has more credibility than a witness that only heard what the first witness said or even the third witness that only heard what the second witness told him. You can see that the progression of statements from the early church fathers is played out the message looks less and less like the first letter of the NT. It been carried so far by the catholic church that the very bible “first witness letter” is of no value IMO. In a nut shell the CC teaches that it is the fullness necessary for salvation in spite of what the bible says to other readers, in these cases the bible and the reader are at fault.
Click to expand...
You couldn’t be more wrong. The Rosary is scriptural. All prayers are contained in scripture. The Divine office or any other is all scripture based as well. The Catholic Church gave you the Bible. God is the supreme author and Jesus founded the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church in Matthew 16:18. We are to have only one faith as noted in Ephesians 4:1-6. The Church can’t contradict God’s word because he gave us the word and the Holy Spirit is testimony to it. We are the only ones who have the fullness of truth. You haven’t even provided any defense of yourself in scripture. Consider your statements debunked. If you can’t find a reliable response then don’t reply back.
 
In a nutshell:

Protestants believe that if a tradition can’t be directly demonstrated from the Bible, it needs to be thrown out.

Catholics believe that if a custom or belief doesn’t directly contradict the Bible, AND can be definitively tied to the beliefs of the early Christians (tradition), then it is ok to keep.

Further, the Catholic Church almost never defines a doctrine infallibly unless it is challenged by an outside group as to whether or not it is correct. For example, belief in the Assumption of Mary clearly dates to the earliest days of Christianity, since both the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox share this belief with us. However, it was not “infallibly” defined as true until 1950. This isn’t changing or adding a belief, it’s simply responding more forcefully to critics of a currently held belief and defining it more formally.
 
John one one,
All I can say is that you’re probably reading the wrong threads. The Scriptures are vital; there is no Christianity or Catholicism without them.

A Course in Miracles is satanic. Of course it’s trying to topple the Scriptures.
 
John_one_one said:
Every new age philosophy along with scores of others make every effort to topple the bible. A Course In Miracles one of the larger more popular new age doctrines, promoted by Opera on TV like to reference Jesus as a model but they never listen or mention His words, except for maybe “the kingdom of heaven is within you”. Just as the others “non believer and new agers” do, the bible is nonsense to them. To me its no surprise that non believers minimize the bible but as far as I can tell, this forum is full of catholics that at every point also profess the bible is useless beyond simply pointing to the authority of its church and magistrate. Its useless without the church to tell you what it says, its also repeated many times that its incomplete. It looks to me like the catholic church and non Jesus believers both have a common goal, get rid of the bible.
What say you?
Click to expand...
Well it sure would shorten the Mass if we got rid of the Bible. In fact about the only thing left would be the sermon BUT then we would be just like Evagelical Protestants.!

You comments, BTW, show such a profound ignornace of Catholicsim we really have no starting point for discussion
 
The Bible is useless only when its not read. You have to have a bigging, the Holy Catholic Bible is the one.
 
FickleFreckled said:
John one one,
All I can say is that you’re probably reading the wrong threads. The Scriptures are vital; there is no Christianity or Catholicism without them.

A Course in Miracles is satanic. Of course it’s trying to topple the Scriptures.
Click to expand...
Could the same be said for tradition? Tradition in the greek means to transmit what is (concretely) established not to pore a new foundation. You could surmise that the NT is the written expression of tradition. The catholic definition of tradition is the presumed mysteries that have been reveled threw the centuries, those are not found in the “written” tradition of the NT letters they all came from later church leaders. Tell me when you stand before the throne will you reference the traditions of those who never knew Jesus personally in the flesh? Or will you reference the first witnesses to His life in the flesh and what they said? As for me and my house hold I chose that latter.

My point in this tread is to draw attention to the language that catholics use when supporting their church at the expense of minimizing the bible and what it says. The same is true for those that I mentioned in the tread starter. Its all fine and dandy for you IMO to state that you have an other interpretation, but statements like the bible is not a complete tool for salvation is IMO to deny the message itself. To continually and exclusively point to the CC cataclysm and private references is pointless you are simply testifying to yourself. Strangely enough thats what the new agers do also, they are god and also testify to themselves also. Selecting parts of the bible and the demonstration of Jesus is also referenced for their own means. The message is the same the bible is not the complete answer.
 
Do you understand what I am saying every false church new age philosophy and just plain crazies all agree on one thing …the bible is not the complete picture.

Protestants on the other hand say it is.
 
John_one_one said:
Could the same be said for tradition? Tradition in the greek means to transmit what is (concretely) established not to pore a new foundation. You could surmise that the NT is the written expression of tradition. The catholic definition of tradition is the presumed mysteries that have been reveled threw the centuries, those are not found in the “written” tradition of the NT letters they all came from later church leaders. Tell me when you stand before the throne will you reference the traditions of those who never knew Jesus personally in the flesh? Or will you reference the first witnesses to His life in the flesh and what they said? As for me and my house hold I chose that latter.

My point in this tread is to draw attention to the language that catholics use when supporting their church at the expense of minimizing the bible and what it says. The same is true for those that I mentioned in the tread starter. Its all fine and dandy for you IMO to state that you have an other interpretation, but statements like the bible is not a complete tool for salvation is IMO to deny the message itself. To continually and exclusively point to the CC cataclysm and private references is pointless you are simply testifying to yourself. Strangely enough thats what the new agers do also, they are god and also testify to themselves also. Selecting parts of the bible and the demonstration of Jesus is also referenced for their own means. The message is the same the bible is not the complete answer.
Click to expand...
What you take as “minimizing” the Bible is, in fact, the fact that the Catholic cxhurch does not teach that private interpretation of the Bible is reasonable. You mistake one thing for another. It is true that authentic Catholics rely on scholars and the teaching authority of the Magisterium to gain a better understanding of the Bible. That does not mean that Cathlic reject the Bible. Quite the opposite. Good Catholics study the Bible and seek authentic understanding within the context of the entire word of God. It is folly to think that an individual, isolated from the Church, can reasonably interpret the Bible.

It is, in fact, the Catholic Curch that preserved the Bible an determined what it is. The Catholic church is the original Bible Church as the Catholic Church predates the Bible by about 400 years.
 
rpp said:
It is folly to think that an individual, isolated from the Church, can reasonably interpret the Bible.
Click to expand...
I rest my case.

So If Paul was writing letters to another “church” who was there to interpret it for them.
And If that was true “an interpreter was presant” Paul would never have needed to write in the first place.
The need for an human interpreter is folly, by your logic their had to be someone there to tell them what he meant. :eek: the interpreter is the author, men moved by the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit is the interpreter. To clarify Jesus said that the HS would transmit what He hears and sees in heaven concerning Jesus to us, the body not the special few. Men can teach one another as iron sharpens iron “see proverbs” This is why Peter says, scripture is not a “personal interpretation” Both men are in agreement with the HS and sharpen one another. Dont you know that the body of Christ has many members? At ever point catholics interpretation supports the catholic church and not the fullness I see written about Christ, your statement makes my point.
 
John_one_one said:
Do you understand what I am saying every false church new age philosophy and just plain crazies all agree on one thing …the bible is not the complete picture.

Protestants on the other hand say it is.
Click to expand...
Maybe so, but all Ecclesial Communities outside the Catholic Church are false. Protestants have no authority and never had. They put themselves at odds when they rebelled and excommunicated themselves. You can’t have 2 faiths. The only faith there is, is the one that Christ founded. It has the fullness of truth. That is the Catholic Church plain and simple. Please give your definition of a true Church and give your thoughts on Matthew 16:18. The Catholic Church is the original and all others are false and use man made doctrines. The mass is 100% biblical. It is false to say that Catholics don’t interpret scripture right and we are trying to eliminate the Bible. Not one thing does the Catholic Church contradict in scripture. You haven’t even given us any scriptural support to your false claims nor do you even know what Catholics believe. I suggest you do some research pal.
 
John_one_one said:
I rest my case.

So If Paul was writing letters to another “church” who was there to interpret it for them.
And If that was true “an interpreter was presant” Paul would never have needed to write in the first place.
The need for an human interpreter is folly, by your logic their had to be someone there to tell them what he meant. :eek: the interpreter is the author, men moved by the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit is the interpreter. To clarify Jesus said that the HS would transmit what He hears and sees in heaven concerning Jesus to us, the body not the special few. Men can teach one another as iron sharpens iron “see proverbs” This is why Peter says, scripture is not a “personal interpretation” Both men are in agreement with the HS and sharpen one another. Dont you know that the body of Christ has many members? At ever point catholics interpretation supports the catholic church and not the fullness I see written about Christ, your statement makes my point.
Click to expand...
St. Paul had an interpreter. The Holy Spirit That is all he needed. We know what the Body of Christ is and who is members of that body. We also know what the pillar of truth is too. Guess what it isn’t scripture. The Church is the pillar of Truth. It gets back to Matthew 16:18. Christ founded the Church, he gave all the essentials. You have not provided anything to your cause. Just plain out blasphemy against the Church that Christ established
 
I also find your username hilarious as most non-Catholics seem to think the Gospel of John is all symbolism especially chapter 6 😃
 
JOHN one one,
Protestants don’t take all the Scriptures literally. If they did, they’d believe that the Body and Blood of Christ is present under the appearance of bread and wine. And they’d believe it when He said “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you shall not have life within you.” You don’t hear many Protestant sermons on that.

Jesus gave Peter and the apostles governing power over His Church. The Church is made up of imperfect humans. Remember when Jesus said of the Pharisees that they placed heavy burdens on people and didn’t lift a finger to help them? He also said of the Pharisees, “Do what they tell you but don’t be like them.” Jesus told the Jews to obey those in religious authority over them, even if it was difficult, even if it didn’t make sense, even if it seemed that they were more concerned with rubrics than with the substance of faith. Whatever you may think of Catholicism, its insistance on rubrics and minutiae and on obedience to the Magisterium, there’s a reason for all those things.
Faithfully following the teachings of the Catholic Church will keep a person safe from serious sin and spiritual harm while he or she is growing in relationship with the Lord. Obedience to the Church is submission to Jesus.
 
Quoting Mat 16:18 as the corner stone of authority is miss handling scripture in the same way that some protestants do when they see the anti christ and a new temple being built in Dan 9:27.

After you fall into misinterpretation your whole reading of the word has leaven in it, it pumps you up with folly. From that one verse 9:27 came dispensationalism, from Mat 16:18 came the whole catholic church. Nether can find other clear scriptures to support it. Both read the scriptures in such a way that supports their belief. No where will you find a new temple mentioned, with the anti Christ tricking the Jews. No where do we find a clear definition that Peter was the chief or that Jesus turned the whole power of the God head over to him ether. But you both interpret the letters in such a way to support your interpretation. When you cant defend your faith with the scriptures you pull Mat 16:18 like its a nuke that takes away all doubt, but does it? perhaps for you. Its clear that after that verse is accepted as you read it men have no choice but to fall at your feet.

And the matter of evidence, do you really want me to post links from all over this site to prove that catholics minimize the bible and promote the church alone sola church? Or are you going to pretend it doesn’t happen? frequently.
 
John_one_one said:
Every new age philosophy along with scores of others make every effort to topple the bible. A Course In Miracles one of the larger more popular new age doctrines, promoted by Opera on TV like to reference Jesus as a model but they never listen or mention His words, except for maybe “the kingdom of heaven is within you”. Just as the others “non believer and new agers” do, the bible is nonsense to them. To me its no surprise that non believers minimize the bible but as far as I can tell, this forum is full of catholics that at every point also profess the bible is useless beyond simply pointing to the authority of its church and magistrate. Its useless without the church to tell you what it says, its also repeated many times that its incomplete. It looks to me like the catholic church and non Jesus believers both have a common goal, get rid of the bible.
What say you?
Click to expand...
First point: Nearly 2000 years, and the Catholic Church has failed miserably in stamping out the Bible. Darn all those medieval monks who copied it out by hand!

Second point: How is private interpretation working out for you?
 
John_one_one said:
I rest my case.

So If Paul was writing letters to another “church” who was there to interpret it for them.
And If that was true “an interpreter was presant” Paul would never have needed to write in the first place.
The need for an human interpreter is folly, by your logic their had to be someone there to tell them what he meant. :eek: the interpreter is the author, men moved by the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit is the interpreter. To clarify Jesus said that the HS would transmit what He hears and sees in heaven concerning Jesus to us, the body not the special few. Men can teach one another as iron sharpens iron “see proverbs” This is why Peter says, scripture is not a “personal interpretation” Both men are in agreement with the HS and sharpen one another. Dont you know that the body of Christ has many members? At ever point catholics interpretation supports the catholic church and not the fullness I see written about Christ, your statement makes my point.
Click to expand...
By your logic. 1,521 years passed from Christ’s birth until the advent of Christianity. Somehow,.that does not make sense. Get real.

But since you are willing to lie and make false statements to support your opinion, your opinion is not worth supporting. Thank you for demonstrating the utter ridiculousness of your position.

And no, I did not waste my time and read all of your ridiculous and illogical post.

Also, please study grammar and get a spell checker.
 
John_one_one said:
Quoting Mat 16:18 as the corner stone of authority is miss handling scripture in the same way that some protestants do when they see the anti christ and a new temple being built in Dan 9:27.
Click to expand...
And NOW you see the importance of tradition. How do we know which of the above interpretations is correct (if any)? The Church uses corroborating evidence from the early Church, generally, the Early Church Fathers and other historical documents. THIS is tradition in the Catholic sense. The Dan 9:27 interpretation is clearly a recent invention. However, the Mat 16:18 interpretation dates to the early church. There is a clear pattern of hierarchy, lists of early popes, writings, pronouncements, and so on. This is something that can be verified, and so the traditional interpretation is maintained.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top