The useless Bible?

[Rolltide]

Back to the topic do any catholics claim the bible is satisfactory for salvation.

In short, the Bible is absolutely CRITICAL to our salvation, and forms one of the twin pillars of our faith. Christianity CANNOT FUNCTION without the Bible. That said… “Sola Scriptura”, the claim that the Bible alone is satisfactory for salvation, is a heretical belief first introduced to Christianity a mere 500 years ago by Martin Luther and other “reformers”. NO ONE in the entire first 1500 years of Christianity, including the Apostles and Jesus Himself, believed this.

As you said, the Bible repeatedly warns us to beware of false teachings. Catholics and Orthodox would claim that this is simply another false teaching to be wary of.

 

[Thing]

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.

The first witnesses did not have a Bible - they only had The Church. The Church gradually wrote The Bible; the Gospels are the memoirs of the Churches first members; the Epistles are the internal Church letters which it sent to itself in different regions. Happily for us that Church continues to exist, as its Founder promised, ‘I will build My church…’.

The memoirs and letters of the Church, removed from the Church, lose their context.
Someone who removes the memoirs and letters from the Church is someone who wishes to remove the context from the memoirs and letters.

And so we see anomalies in christianity about all sorts of fundamental things when the Church is removed from the Church documents:
e.g. the Church has always taught baptism with water, ‘christian churches’ on the other hand can teach anything about baptism from the same scriptures - from baptism as being unnecessary to it being necessary but an empty symbol, to an uncertainty about what ‘water’ is, amniotic fluid or just water or what, …

…and, the wierdest thing is that the same Scriptures say that Unless one is baptised one cannot enter the Kingdom of God, so the ‘christian churches’ with their uncertainty have given themselves the headache of presenting their congregations with a lottery on salvation; did I get baptised the right way in that last ‘christian church’ I attended or do I really need baptism at all. Will I get into the Kingdom of God without baptism? No? So which baptism will I choose, which is the right one, and most importantly how will I know.
The answer to me is clear; ask The Church which produced the Gospels and Epistles what baptism actually is - what it has always meant. And The Church will tell you. Simple.

 

[wmscott]

:clapping: :clapping: :clapping:

Thanks tobinatorstark, I would like to say that I do not know where some of these folks come up with this bunk, but I used to be one of them. As an anti-Catholic, I would use the same old playbook that is still used to day. There is nothing new or original in the fallicies of their arguements, just the names and faces have changed. I guess this is how the gates of hell has the ability to attack the Church throughout the ages.

 

[tobinatorstark]

Thanks tobinatorstark, I would like to say that I do not know where some of these folks come up with this bunk, but I used to be one of them. As an anti-Catholic, I would use the same old playbook that is still used to day. There is nothing new or original in the fallicies of their arguements, just the names and faces have changed. I guess this is how the gates of hell has the ability to attack the Church throughout the ages.

People seem to think since we are Catholic that we don’t read the Bible. Growing up it was never explicitly stated to read the Bible, but it was expected. I have heard everything as well. I have an aunt and uncle who are very anti Catholic. My Uncle used to be Catholic but separated along with my grandfather and grandmother in 1972. My uncle is now a “ordained minister”. He is still feeding the line over and over. I was just so moved by your statement I couldn’t help but aplaud you.

 

[rpp]

People seem to think since we are Catholic that we don’t read the Bible. Growing up it was never explicitly stated to read the Bible, but it was expected. I have heard everything as well. I have an aunt and uncle who are very anti Catholic. My Uncle used to be Catholic but separated along with my grandfather and grandmother in 1972. My uncle is now a “ordained minister”. He is still feeding the line over and over. I was just so moved by your statement I couldn’t help but aplaud you.

Referring the text in bold, this thread also makes it abundantly clear that when some Protestants are told that Catholic actually read the Bible, they simply refuse to believe it.

Of course, since Protestants use an abridged version of the Bible and rely on personal interpretation, lots of odd ideas creep in.

Oh, and wmscott, that was an excellent post. Well said.

 

[tobinatorstark]

Referring the text in bold, this thread also makes it abundantly clear that when some Protestants are told that Catholic actually read the Bible, they simply refuse to believe it.

Of course, since Protestants use an abridged version of the Bible and rely on personal interpretation, lots of odd ideas creep in.

Oh, and wmscott, that was an excellent post. Well said.

agreed

 

[wmscott]

Referring the text in bold, this thread also makes it abundantly clear that when some Protestants are told that Catholic actually read the Bible, they simply refuse to believe it.

Of course, since Protestants use an abridged version of the Bible and rely on personal interpretation, lots of odd ideas creep in.

Oh, and wmscott, that was an excellent post. Well said.

Thanks rpp, A great point that you make is that some Protestants refuse to believe that we read the Bible, I wonder if they realize that we cover the entire Bible in a three year period during Mass. Not only do we read the Bible, we actually have the word of God preached to us by the Church.

Mark 3:14; 16:15 - *Jesus commands the apostles to preach (not write) the gospel to the world. Jesus gives no commandment to the apostles to write, and gives them no indication that the oral apostolic word he commanded them to communicate would later die in the fourth century. If Jesus wanted Christianity to be limited to a book (which would be finalized four centuries later), wouldn’t He have said a word about it? *

 

[ahollars]

As I said before I dont see any catholics claiming the bible is sufficient for salvation.
Its the “church” by what ever definition you place on it. The exception to this rule of yours is lack of knowledge, LOL just where do you glean this from? If your stupid enought you will get to heaven is that the meaning?
Mysteries< just do a google search on Mary and the mysteries of the CC and see what you find. The mystery is how the CC transmits the proper translation of the bible from the select few to the body. the mystery is why read the bible when you teach know one else can understand its meaning. You did not address my statement about who translated the meaning of the letters written to the early churches. By your standard it is useless to read about the message of Gods witness. In closing men are saved the Jesus not the CC.

Its rather plain that the CC has no place for any one but its self including God. You openly claim you hold the power and authority of heaven on earth LOL those are shoes no man but Jesus will ever fill, but please go right ahead and lay that before the King of heaven and earth and see what it gets you. Aparently the catholic version of scripture overlooks and paraphrases all the references to Jesus and the HS with CC. Just how is that working for you?
Back to the topic do any catholics claim the bible is satisfactory for salvation.
Apparently it was good enough to get Linus in the door but after that he slammed it in everyone elses face. Catholic is a universal word for sure it replaces anything including the Father Son and HS including scripture and even closes the door on understanding Gods inspired word did I miss something?

Why do you trust the Catholic Church with determining the content of Scripture, but not it’s interpretation? How do you know that the books we decided to include are sufficient and we didn’t leave anything out that should have been included? Go back and read the scripts from the Councils of Hippo and Carthage. You know nothing of what you speak. Do not come here with what you think you know and spread lies about us. You are using one of the oldest argument against us, and we’ve been hearing it for 500 years.

For the record, in the Catholic Mass, if you go everyday for three years, you have heard and/or read the entire bible.

 

[John_one_one]

Why do you trust the Catholic Church with determining the content of Scripture, but not it’s interpretation?

The catholic church is no friend of the written word unless its the catechism. I find it unbelievable that the CC today takes credit for the recorded word of God and then professes that only a few in Rome are capable of understanding its meaning .

I still believe that salvation is from hearing the word of God. Before you catholic brothers reference the litteral meaning here and claim that it is speaking of speech alone lest look at the CC statements literally.

“There is one holy Catholic and apostolic church, outside of which there is no salvation . . . . it is altogether necessary for salvation for every creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”(Unam Sanctam AD 1302)

“This holy Council teaches . . . that the Church . . . is necessary for salvation. . . . Hence, they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it, or to remain in it”(Austin Flannery, Vatican Council II, 1988, vol. 1, pg 365, 366).

Listen to the words of [Pope] Paul VI called ‘On Evangelization in the Modern World.’ He says: ‘The commitment of someone newly evangelized cannot remain abstract (‘Oh, I’m a Christian,’ now that’s too abstract) … it must be given concrete and visible form through entry . . . into the [Catholic) Church our visible sacrament of salvation.’

If salvation was in the person of Christ alone, as the Bible teaches, one would not need the redemptive work of the sacraments found only in the Roman church. Because these are not found in the Bible as conveyers for salvation.

There are hundreds of references to this catholic belief. Now add to that your presumed power to hand out grace and forgive sins and you have clearly made yourself God. Who is it in the bible that attempts to place them self in place of the most high? At ever turn the CC claims this position proudly I might add.

Popooing the bible and following tradition is your folly IMO.
The word tradition occurs only 14 times in the whole New Testament, in the Old Testament not once. We find 8 references of traditions are from Jesus himself, all of which are unfavorable. Not once does He imply they are spiritually useful. Mark 7:7-9 “And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men. “For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men.” This is what happens when another body of teachings are made equal with what God has spoken. Jesus made it clear that the Bible was in a class of its own, exalted above all religious traditions. He rebuked the Pharisees not because they didn’t understand tradition, but for not accepting sola Scriptura. They negated the final authority the Word of God by their religious traditions. Their tradition made the word of God to have no effect. (Mk.7) They stopped the people from reading the word and had them obey their traditions instead.

Jesus began His ministry by quoting Scripture And He began to say to them, “Today this Scripture is fulfilled in your hearing”(Luke 4:21). Jesus always quoted the Scriptures as the final source of authority (Matt. 22:29 32; Mark 7:9,13) Jesus consistently appealed to the Bible and the apostles followed this tradition. They often stated the phrase, “It is written,” (repeated 92 times New Testament), “have you not read?” (Matt. 12:3,5; 19:4; 21:16; 42; Mk. 12:10), “search the Scriptures” (John 5:39), “is it not written in your law?” (Jn.10:34; Lk. 10:25). This clearly shows that the people were able and recommended to read and interpret the Scriptures for themselves.

The conclusion is you cant be catholic and follow the written word both, the only way that is possible is to let the Vatican interpret scripture for you, and of course thats just what they teach.
[/quote]

 

[wmscott]

The catholic church is no friend of the written word unless its the catechism. I find it unbelievable that the CC today takes credit for the recorded word of God and then professes that only a few in Rome are capable of understanding its meaning .

I still believe that salvation is from hearing the word of God. Before you catholic brothers reference the litteral meaning here and claim that it is speaking of speech alone lest look at the CC statements literally.

There are hundreds of references to this catholic belief. Now add to that your presumed power to had out grace and forgive sins and you have clearly made yourself God. Who is it in the bible that attempts to place them self in place of the most high? At ever turn the CC claims this position proudly I might add.

Popooing the bible and following tradition is your folly IMO.
The word tradition occurs only 14 times in the whole New Testament, in the Old Testament not once. We find 8 references of traditions are from Jesus himself, all of which are unfavorable. Not once does He imply they are spiritually useful. Mark 7:7-9 “And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men. “For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men.” This is what happens when another body of teachings are made equal with what God has spoken. Jesus made it clear that the Bible was in a class of its own, exalted above all religious traditions. He rebuked the Pharisees not because they didn’t understand tradition, but for not accepting sola Scriptura. They negated the final authority the Word of God by their religious traditions. Their tradition made the word of God to have no effect. (Mk.7) They stopped the people from reading the word and had them obey their traditions instead.

Jesus began His ministry by quoting Scripture And He began to say to them, “Today this Scripture is fulfilled in your hearing”(Luke 4:21). Jesus always quoted the Scriptures as the final source of authority (Matt. 22:29 32; Mark 7:9,13) Jesus consistently appealed to the Bible and the apostles followed this tradition. They often stated the phrase, “It is written,” (repeated 92 times New Testament), “have you not read?” (Matt. 12:3,5; 19:4; 21:16; 42; Mk. 12:10), “search the Scriptures” (John 5:39), “is it not written in your law?” (Jn.10:34; Lk. 10:25). This clearly shows that the people were able and recommended to read and interpret the Scriptures for themselves.

The conclusion is you cant be catholic and follow the written word both, the only way that is possible is to let the Vatican interpret scripture for you, and of course thats just they teach.

I am curious of your thoughts regarding post 38.

 

[Rolltide]

John One One,
A couple of questions / comments.

1. So, you’re saying the Bible should be a relatively easy document to interpret. Any individual can do it, right? I ask that because I was in a discussion with some Jehovah’s Witnesses a couple of weeks ago, and they informed me that the Bible clearly states that there is no Trinity and that Jesus is, in reality, the Archangel Michael. Then, just this week, a baptist minister at my wife’s grandfather’s funeral told me that the only way I could be saved was by going to his church and making an “altar call”, but I didn’t see that listed anywhere in the Bible. Also, my Episcopalian friend at work told me how excited she was that her parish just got a new openly lesbian minister, and how glad that they were to demonstrate how wrong earlier interpretations of the Bible were on this point. Now, I looked very hard and I didn’t see ANY of this in the Bible. But surely their interpretations must be correct, since all we have to do is read the Bible, right? It’s all right there, isn’t it? The one thing that ALL of these groups have in common is that they believe is that the Bible ALONE is sufficient for salvation. So, what’s up?

For that matter, why should I go to a church at all, since all I need to do is stay home and read the Bible? Why would I go to a church and listen to the fallible preaching of a man interpret the Bible for me?

1. I’m curious… could you describe to me what the Christian church looked like, and how it developed, up until, say, the year 400? How precisely was the Bible compiled? Why did Revelation and the books of Peter make it in? Why were books like the Gospel of Thomas, the Didache, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistle of Barnabas, and the Infancy Gospel of Thomas thrown out? What role did bishops play? Were the early bishops just Christian, or specifically Orthodox Catholic Christians? How did different churches communicate during such a great time of persecution? How did they learn about Christianity when so many regions lacked access to many of the scriptures, and even then, couldn’t decide what constituted scripture?

 

[John_one_one]

I am curious of your thoughts regarding post 38.

Most of what is mentiond is the result IMO of Peter becoming the “rock, Rock” in the complete fullness of Jesus.

I have posted my own comments on the native language that tradition is translated from above, Jesus was not to fond of it, I find it hard to believe that the Apostles used the word in context of some unwritten necessity like Marys office or the sacraments, or Peters power to forgive sins “loosening and binding” The Jews knew. The Bible says this in Mark 2:7 Why does this Man speak blasphemies like this? Who can forgive sins but God alone?”
This can be applied to every priest today that has men confess their sins to them to be absolved by their priestly powers. For we are to go to God alone for this.

I have the same problem with Mat 16:18
If you do a word search in your bible for rock, Rock you will not find one reference to this Rock of our salvation as being Peter, only the CC makes that claim and after you have accepted it the only thing that has power is the church. Jesus could just as easily been referring to Himself as the rock that was spoken about in the OT. He certainly wasn’t leaving Peter in charge and stating that by the laying of hands he would transmit this exclusive power to another. But believe what you like or are told. IMO Peter is not the living Rock of the NT.

Yet it was Peter who you claim was the first Pope who said the opposite about baptism.
1 Pet 3:21 There is also an antitype which now saves us-- baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
The filth of the flesh is the sin nature. Baptism according to Peter does not remove this, he also calls it an antitype, which is a type of another type. This proves it is a symbol of the real event. It is described as the answer of a good conscience toward God. Not the means of obtaining it.

I would encourage you to compare the original language with the english translation. This is very easy and available at an elementary level with out the need for a 4 year degree. Its unfortunate that the CC forbids this kind of discovery and will simply tell you, its impossible to understand the true meaning in the letter written by Peter. As you know from listening to the catholic church you can’t get to heaven unless Rome oks it.

One last thing Jesus taught that we should forgive our neighbor, when I read threw the official church position I am amazed at the frequent use of the word anathema, does it indicates an unwillingness to forgive. The only act of acceptable forgiveness is bowing to the church.

“As Peter entered the house, Cornelius met him and fell at his feet in reverence. But Peter made him get up. ‘Stand up,’ he said, ‘I am only a man myself.’” Acts 10:25-26

Even the Angels dont allow reverence to paid to them.
"I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, 'See that you do not do that! I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren who have the testimony of Jesus. Worship God!” Revelation 19:9

Why not just place the reverence where it belongs in Jesus “alone” He is the author and finisher of our faith.

 

[tobinatorstark]

The catholic church is no friend of the written word unless its the catechism. I find it unbelievable that the CC today takes credit for the recorded word of God and then professes that only a few in Rome are capable of understanding its meaning .

I still believe that salvation is from hearing the word of God. Before you catholic brothers reference the litteral meaning here and claim that it is speaking of speech alone lest look at the CC statements literally.

There are hundreds of references to this catholic belief. Now add to that your presumed power to hand out grace and forgive sins and you have clearly made yourself God. Who is it in the bible that attempts to place them self in place of the most high? At ever turn the CC claims this position proudly I might add.

Popooing the bible and following tradition is your folly IMO.
The word tradition occurs only 14 times in the whole New Testament, in the Old Testament not once. We find 8 references of traditions are from Jesus himself, all of which are unfavorable. Not once does He imply they are spiritually useful. Mark 7:7-9 “And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men. “For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men.” This is what happens when another body of teachings are made equal with what God has spoken. Jesus made it clear that the Bible was in a class of its own, exalted above all religious traditions. He rebuked the Pharisees not because they didn’t understand tradition, but for not accepting sola Scriptura. They negated the final authority the Word of God by their religious traditions. Their tradition made the word of God to have no effect. (Mk.7) They stopped the people from reading the word and had them obey their traditions instead.

Jesus began His ministry by quoting Scripture And He began to say to them, “Today this Scripture is fulfilled in your hearing”(Luke 4:21). Jesus always quoted the Scriptures as the final source of authority (Matt. 22:29 32; Mark 7:9,13) Jesus consistently appealed to the Bible and the apostles followed this tradition. They often stated the phrase, “It is written,” (repeated 92 times New Testament), “have you not read?” (Matt. 12:3,5; 19:4; 21:16; 42; Mk. 12:10), “search the Scriptures” (John 5:39), “is it not written in your law?” (Jn.10:34; Lk. 10:25). This clearly shows that the people were able and recommended to read and interpret the Scriptures for themselves.

The conclusion is you cant be catholic and follow the written word both, the only way that is possible is to let the Vatican interpret scripture for you, and of course thats just what they teach.

You totally misunderstood what Catholics are taught. Hm… I didn’t know Jesus taught sola scriptura. Where is that in the BIble???

 

[John_one_one]

John One One,
A couple of questions / comments.

1. I’m curious… could you describe to me what the Christian church looked like, and how it developed, up until, say, the year 400? How precisely was the Bible compiled? Why did Revelation and the books of Peter make it in? Why were books like the Gospel of Thomas, the Didache, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistle of Barnabas, and the Infancy Gospel of Thomas thrown out? What role did bishops play? Were the early bishops just Christian, or specifically Orthodox Catholic Christians? How did different churches communicate during such a great time of persecution? How did they learn about Christianity when so many regions lacked access to many of the scriptures, and even then, couldn’t decide what constituted scripture?

Read Rev CH 12 its pretty clear that the church went under ground, hiding in the wilderness. If you apply 1260 days to the same standard of time measuring outlined in Danial 9, as to the coming of the Messiah we can confirm that a day equals a year. Thats 1260 years the church was hidden from the dragon. You figure the rest out or ask your preacher, he’ll tell you its Mary.

 

[margarette]

Jesus began His ministry by quoting Scripture And He began to say to them, “Today this Scripture is fulfilled in your hearing”(Luke 4:21). Jesus always quoted the Scriptures as the final source of authority (Matt. 22:29 32; Mark 7:9,13) Jesus consistently appealed to the Bible and the apostles followed this tradition. They often stated the phrase, “It is written,” (repeated 92 times New Testament), “have you not read?” (Matt. 12:3,5; 19:4; 21:16; 42; Mk. 12:10), “search the Scriptures” (John 5:39), “is it not written in your law?” (Jn.10:34; Lk. 10:25). This clearly shows that the people were able and recommended to read and interpret the Scriptures for themselves.

Wow 92 times “it is written” I hadn’t heard that before.

Hey john 1, I can tell your my brother by your words.

Thank you Michael Francis for the edit.

 

[John_one_one]

You totally misunderstood what Catholics are taught. Hm… I didn’t know Jesus taught sola scriptura. Where is that in the BIble???

Show me where Jesus did not or could not support all that He said with written scripture.
Show me His traditions, and I’ll show you the OT.

 

[Rolltide]

Read Rev CH 12 its pretty clear that the church went under ground, hiding in the wilderness. If you apply 1260 days to the same standard of time measuring outlined in Danial 9, as to the coming of the Messiah we can confirm that a day equals a year. Thats 1260 years the church was hidden from the dragon. You figure the rest out or ask your preacher, he’ll tell you its Mary.

Ok… this is actually interesting…

At what point did the church go underground? During the time of the Apostles? A generation after?

Does that mean that the bishops and presbyters of the West and East were false teachers of some kind?

Does this hold true for the Orthodox Churches as well?

Where is there any evidence of this “underground” group of Christians, since even Christians hiding underground in Rome had bishops? How did they get the Bible since it wasn’t in finished form until 400 AD?

What did this underground group look like? Did it have a name?

 

[John_one_one]

He rebuked the Pharisees not because they didn’t understand tradition, but for not accepting sola Scriptura.

When you get done reteaching the world how to read give me a call.

6 He answered and said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:

  ‘ This people honors Me with their lips,
  But their heart is far from Me.
   7 And in vain they worship Me,
  Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.

Teaching the doctrines of men as commandments.
Just where does that leave the 7 sacraments?
Out in the cold with Mariology IMO

Not accepting scripture is adding to or taking away the Pharisees were adding.
Im certain they believed that it was inline with scripture though. Just dressing it up a bit so to speak.

 

[Rolltide]

When you get done reteaching the world how to read give me a call.

So now Tobinatorstark shouldn’t be interpreting the Bible…

Teaching the doctrines of men as commandments.
Just where does that leave the 7 sacraments?
Out in the cold with Mariology IMO

Because clearly baptism and communion are un-Biblical…

 

[Thing]

John 1:

Jesus consistently appealed to the Bible

Huh!?

Jesus was dead for over three hundred years before the Bible was put together as The Bible.
Jesus was dead for perhaps thirty years before anything at all began to be written by the Apostles.

What did people do for that 30 to 60 year period after Jesus died when there were no new Testament Sacred Scriptures.

How did people ‘get saved’ without reading the Bible. Were they saved by reading the Jewish Scriptures, our Old Testament.

Do we need the New Testament if people were saved by reading the Old Testament.
Well yes! Of course, but we did not always have the New Testament Scriptures.

Jesus did not write one syllable to us Himself. He could have written a world full of perfect texts to us. But instead, what Jesus authored, as superior to a world full of perfect texts, was His Church.

Just what did Jesus leave behind Him when He died if He did not leave any new Scriptures to us?

He left His Church to us.

And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.