The useless Bible?

[rpp]

:yawn:

This is boring. Watching the uninformed and willfully ignorant dodge facts and the obvious truth.

God is not a God of chaos. That is what Protestantism is. That alone is proof that personal interpretation and refusal to study how the Apostles, their contemporaries and immediate successors taught. Of course the other proof is that the Bible did not exist until nearly four hundred years after the Christ’s sacrifice.

 

[ahollars]

I can keep going, and there are plenty of Catholics here who are far better at this than me.

We are not intimidated by you, and you cannot frustrate us into submission with these tired, old lies about the Church. We’ve heard them a thousand times already.

Good luck.

 

[John_one_one]

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?

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

Rev 12:4 His tail drew a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to give birth, to devour her Child as soon as it was born. 5 She bore a male Child who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron. And her Child was caught up to God and His throne. 6 Then the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, that they should feed her there one thousand two hundred and sixty days.

After He was caught up to God and His throne. Then the woman fled into the wilderness,
seems pretty clear to me.

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

Show me where it says or even implies that it “the church” went to Rome and shortly there after controlled the whole fallen Roman kingdom.

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?

Do the math for yourself the point is that the church is not seen conquering Rome and its empire.

Rev 12 says that the true church was hidden 13 Now when the dragon saw that he had been cast to the earth, he persecuted the woman who gave birth to the male Child. 14 But the woman was given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness to her place, where she is nourished for a time and times and half a time, from the presence of the serpent. 15 So the serpent spewed water out of his mouth like a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away by the flood. 16 But the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed up the flood which the dragon had spewed out of his mouth. 17 And the dragon was enraged with the woman, and he went to make war with the rest of her offspring, who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

John Hes burned at the stake in 1415 minus 1260 = 155
luther 1521 minus 1260 = 261
1798 - 1260 = 538 thats about the time the CC received complete authority over the entire fallen empire. Some say that about when the EO also packed up and left the RCC. In 1798 Napoleons general took the pope out of office.
538 fits nicely in Rev when it speaks of the wound to the head that healed.
And didn’t Justinian issue a decree that gave the CC official power over all of western Europe? I believe it officially made the pope head of all the churches, that happened in 538. Rome fell in about 476.

The point is the RCC doesn’t fit into Rev 12 to well, she was well under way taking the world over, under the power of Mat 16:18.

 

[John_one_one]

Not at all. God also predetermined the Church, which was His instrument used to bring forth the canon of the Bible. The Bible is most certainly the inspired Word of God.

The most common statement made is
“you would not have the bible if it wasn’t for the CC”
“catholics wrote the NT bible”
Are you now down playing those statements?

 

[John_one_one]

:yawn:

This is boring. Watching the uninformed and willfully ignorant dodge facts and the obvious truth.

God is not a God of chaos. That is what Protestantism is. That alone is proof that personal interpretation and refusal to study how the Apostles, their contemporaries and immediate successors taught. Of course the other proof is that the Bible did not exist until nearly four hundred years after the Christ’s sacrifice.

**The bible as it is now know is simply the combination of letters and scrolls that excised long before the 5th century. So pat your self on the back for binding them into one book. **

 

[rpp]

**The bible as it is now know is simply the combination of letters and scrolls that excised long before the 5th century. So pat your self on the back for binding them into one book. **

There is no reason to shout.

If that were true, if they have been “excised” as you assert (with no supporting evidence) then why do you trust them?

 

[John_one_one]

I can keep going, and there are plenty of Catholics here who are far better at this than me.

We are not intimidated by you, and you cannot frustrate us into submission with these tired, old lies about the Church. We’ve heard them a thousand times already.

Good luck.

Please spare everyone the blizzard of confusion.
If you can’t summarize what you need to say in a single post I believe you are violating the forum rules.

 

[rpp]

Please spare everyone the blizzard of confusion.
If you can’t summarize what you need say in a single post I believe you are violating the forum rules.

That is incorrect. And by the way, you have not been able to do this either.

Please keep this civil and do not get snarky.

 

[John_one_one]

There is no reason to shout.

If that were true, if they have been “excised” as you assert (with no supporting evidence) then why do you trust them?

Who said anything about “excised” the comprehension of statements makes one wonder?
Why do I trust them? because it would have been very difficult with so many copies in circulation.
carm.org/questions/about-bible/manuscript-evidence-superior-new-testament-reliability

An other reliable source
I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place. 35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away.

 

[ahollars]

Please spare everyone the blizzard of confusion.
If you can’t summarize what you need to say in a single post I believe you are violating the forum rules.

What’s the matter? You had plenty to say when you thought you were the one with the evidence? You understand every part of that blizzard of confusion. You just don’t want to admit that it disagrees with you. You came here looking for a confrontation, so don’t get mad just because we’re defending ourselves.

 

[Thing]

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.

I am delighted to be able to tell you that you wrote it, not me.

I dont know where you got that quote from but I dont remember it, nor can I find it.
If you followed his remarks and my post you would have known I was referring to the OT.
I suspect you rephrased it to make your point. Do you think im so stopid to referance Jesus quoting the NT?

You may apologise to me for that remark whenever you are ready!

 

[John_one_one]

John one one;5532625:

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

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

I want to comment on this again.
The Verses in question:

1 Then the Pharisees and some of the scribes came together to Him, having come from Jerusalem. 2 Now when[a] they saw some of His disciples eat bread with defiled, that is, with unwashed hands, they found fault. 3 For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands in a special way, holding the tradition of the elders. 4 When they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other things which they have received and hold, like the washing of cups, pitchers, copper vessels, and couches.
5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked Him, “Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashed hands?”
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.’

8 For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men—the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do.”
9 He said to them, “All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition.

So what do you think Jesus will think about all the Mary business in the CC? Along with all the statues. You can try to justify your sacraments with the Vatican interpretation but its pretty clear that Mary doesn’t have a scriptural leg to stand on.

Since the Immaculate Conception and Assumption are not explicit in Scripture, Fundamentalists conclude that the doctrines are false. Here, of course, we get into an entirely separate matter, the question of sola scriptura, or the Protestant “Bible only” theory. There is no room in this tract to consider that idea. Let it just be said that if the position of the Catholic Church is true, then the notion of sola scriptura is false. There is then no problem with the Church officially defining a doctrine which is not explicitly in Scripture, so long as it is not in contradiction to Scripture.

The Catholic Church was commissioned by Christ to teach all nations and to teach them infallibly—guided, as he promised, by the Holy Spirit until the end of the world (John 14:26, 16:13). The mere fact that the Church teaches that something is definitely true is a guarantee that it is true (cf. Matt. 28:18-20, Luke 10:16, 1 Tim. 3:15).

NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004

catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp

If Jesus was that hard on the Pharisees about their tradition of the washing of hands what do you think He will say about Mary?
He quoted Isaiah “Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men”. Now these were just not any men these where the priest that claimed the divine line of accession from Mosses similar to the same thing that the CC claims about itself from Peter. The other difference I see is I dont question the accession and line of the Pharisees from Abraham and Mosses.

 

[John_one_one]

I am delighted to be able to tell you that you wrote it, not me.

You may apologise to me for that remark whenever you are ready!

I apologize, See my post above?^^^
I was just rehashing and seen it. And I was referring to the OT. I thought you were remaking about a latter post. The OT is in the bible isn’t it?

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.

I sincerely apologize I made a mistake. But not that I was implying Jesus quoted the NT I just thought most scripture readers accepted “knew” that fact without needing to explicitly state that impossibility.

 

[ahollars]

tobinatorstark;5533015:

So what do you think Jesus will think about all the Mary business in the CC? Along with all the statues. You can try to justify your sacraments with the Vatican interpretation but its pretty clear that Mary doesn’t have a scriptural leg to stand on.

If Jesus was that hard on the Pharisees about their tradition of the washing of hands what do you think He will say about Mary?
He quoted Isaiah “Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men”. Now these were just not any men these where the priest that claimed the divine line of accession from Mosses similar to the same thing that the CC claims about itself from Peter. The other difference I see is I dont question the accession and line of the Pharisees from Abraham and Mosses.

Oh, I am so going to enjoy this one. This is too easy. Come back tomorrow afternoon for the whole thing.

 

[tjm190]

Recall that the Catholic Church chose what books made up the Bible.

 

[mark_a]

every false church new age philosophy and just plain crazies all agree on one thing …the bible is not the complete picture.

Nearly every Protestant church, as different as they all are from each other, agree on one thing …that the Catholic Church is not part of “the” Church.

Do you see a similarity here?

 

[tobinatorstark]

Mat 24:32 “Now learn this parable from the fig tree: When its branch has already become tender and puts forth leaves, you know that summer is near. 33 So you also, when you see all these things, know that it[d] is near—at the doors! 34 Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place. 35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away.

Taking credit again for what God has already predetermined are we?

wrong you took that out of context

 

[tobinatorstark]

Tobinatorstark is taking simple language and redefining it meaning.
Jesus clearly rebuked them for traditions.

The CC teaches thats how you receive the HS, read acts 10:34 - 44 the HS fell on these people and non of them had been baptized

I am doing no such thing. I don’t interpret scriptures and twist them. How can Jesus rebuke someone for holding on to traditions that he called them to hold on to???

 

[tobinatorstark]

Apparently it’s not that clear, since more than 2/3 of ALL Christians would disagree with your interpretation of that passage. How do I know your interpretation is correct, and why would I agree with a minority opinion? I certainly don’t see it when I read the passage in context.

Thank you Rolltide

 

[tobinatorstark]

I suspect I missed them will you repost them or provide a link to the traditions of Christ.
I will be more than happy to provide a comment.

I guess you didn’t bother to read my post fully when I provided scripture passages. You want me to repost them?? If I asked you to repost scripture passages you would tell me that I need to go back and reread your posts. Once again here is a list of scripture passages (not all of them I quoted, but others have quoted in past) on scripture and tradition

1 Cor11:2, 2 Thess 2:14, 2 Thess 3:6, John 21:25, Mark 13:11, Acts 20:35, 2 Tim 1:13, 2 Tim 2:2, 2 Peter 1:20, 2 Peter 3:15-16, 1 Peter 1:25, Romans 10:17, 1 Cor 15:1-2, Mark 16:15, Matt 22:2-3.

You want the commentary with that as well???