Tradition can be misleading? So can the Bible.

[justasking4]

Part 2

qui est ce;3121206]

Originally Posted by justasking4

The Real Presence doctrine of the catholic church lacks proper scriptural support i.e. the scriptures don’t teach it.
qui est ce
Well, all I can say to this is you don’t take the Bible and John 6 seriously. It is YOU who refuse to believe what has been believed for over 2,000 years by Catholics.

Have read all that has been written on this for the past 2000 years on this?
What little i have read there were a number of different views on it.

qui est ce
You are also saying the great minds of Jesus, the Apostles, St. Polycarp, Eusubius, St. Justyn Martyr, St Ignatius of Antioch, St. Irenaeus, Tertuliian, St. Augstine, and St. Thomas of Aquinas were all wrong on this point.

Jesus was not wrong. He was God in the flesh. The Apostles were not they were used by Christ to write the NT Scriptures.
Although the others may have had great minds they to could be wrong on various things. If these great men don’t have the scriptures to support them then they are wrong.

qui est ce
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecu…_by_the_Romans
“On a more social, practical level, Christians were distrusted in part because of the secret and misunderstood nature of their worship. Words like “love feast” and talk of “eating Christ’s flesh” sounded understandably suspicious to the pagans, and Christians were suspected of cannibalism, incest, orgies, and all sorts of immorality”

I’m aware of some of this.

q

ui est ce
The Catholic Church, which existed before the Bible was compiled and translated into Latin, believed in the Real Presence.

Not so. The OT Scriptures were already in place before the church. Jesus Who spoke orally the Scriptures by His words and actions predates the church.

qui est ce
How can you say it is not Scriptural, unless you have your heart hardened because you hate to admit Catholics are right about this?

Its got nothing to do with my heart but with what the scriptures teach. Hearts can be wrong, but the scriptures cannot.

 

[guanophore]

Have read all that has been written on this for the past 2000 years on this?
What little i have read there were a number of different views on it.

Jesus was not wrong. He was God in the flesh. The Apostles were not they were used by Christ to write the NT Scriptures.
Although the others may have had great minds they to could be wrong on various things. If these great men don’t have the scriptures to support them then they are wrong.

I’m aware of some of this.

q
Not so. The OT Scriptures were already in place before the church. Jesus Who spoke orally the Scriptures by His words and actions predates the church.

Its got nothing to do with my heart but with what the scriptures teach. Hearts can be wrong, but the scriptures cannot.

The scriptures cannot be wrong, but your heart, which governs how you interpret what you read, can be.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Part 1

Its my understanding that their was much debate what the incarnation entailed. For example what does it mean in the Christ “emptied” Himself in Philippians 2:7?
This was no small matter for the church to deal with.

So you admit there was there was SOME heavy theological discussion.

Did these councils deal with heresies though? If so what were they?

I have no idea.

 

[alanjeddy]

Hey justasking 4 I don’t know what your problem is but several Catholics including myself have given you strong arguments based on scripture and the traditions of our church that powerfuly support the sacred teachings of our church.

. If you were a defense attorney everyone would end up in jail. If you were a prosecuting attorney everyone would be set free.

You are the living proof why there is so much disunity among Protestants ( 30,000 no less.) These numbers indicate that there is something wrong. Besides that you get on my nerves. You are like a painful hemorroid that won’t go away.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Have read all that has been written on this for the past 2000 years on this?
What little i have read there were a number of different views on it.

You have read little, depend on no one but yourself for interpretation, formulate an opinion, tell me scholars for 2,000 years are wrong, and then require I read all that has been written for 2,000 years on this subject in order to convince you? Do you know ancient Greek, Hebrew, Aramic, Latin? Catholics have the Magesterium, so we don’t have to reinvent the wheel.

Jesus was not wrong. He was God in the flesh. The Apostles were not they were used by Christ to write the NT Scriptures.
Although the others may have had great minds they to could be wrong on various things. If these great men don’t have the scriptures to support them then they are wrong.

The Apostles were the living Scriptures, so what they wrote and what they taught was infallibly inerrant in faith and morals. Did they sin? Of course. The ECF’s, the saints I listed were students of the Apostles. They were not wrong, they were simply recording the practices of the early Christians, they wrote history, not the Bible. Luke and Mark were not Apostles. Mark and Luke never even met Jesus. Luke never even met an Apostle. He was a Genitle Syrian from Antioch. He had limited knowledge of Palestine and Jewish customs and culture. How did he come to write inspired?

I’m aware of some of this.

and?

Not so. The OT Scriptures were already in place before the church. Jesus Who spoke orally the Scriptures by His words and actions predates the church.

Which specific books where already in place? The Jews threw out several books in 60 AD, because they found no Hebrew versions. Hebrew fragments of the thrown out books have been found in Qumran in the 1940’s. What about the NT?

Its got nothing to do with my heart but with what the scriptures teach. Hearts can be wrong, but the scriptures cannot.

Until you open the eyes of your heart (ie your soul), you will continue to be a Saul, with scales covering your eyes.

 

[sterryfamily]

Its got nothing to do with my heart but with what the scriptures teach. Hearts can be wrong, but the scriptures cannot.

JA4 - when you say scriptures, do you include the Didache and the Gospel of Peter? How about the Shepherd of Hermas or the Epsitles of St Clement? Or do you only accept as New Testament scripture those books that the Catholic Church (under the guidance of the Holy Spirit) included in the canon of the Bible?

 

[po18guy]

Nay, let none of us do any such thing! What if He had given up on us! Clearly he is here for a reason. He has made it clear that it is not for him to learn, but for him to educate us about our error. I have only been here less than a year, but it seems clear to me that he has not pursuaded any Catholics to leave their faith.

He has asked numerous times how you eat the Body and drink the Blood of Christ, and has been told the same each time. I have no idea what he is doing here, unless sent by God to test our charity!

Of course, but one is to love one’s enemies, and pray for those who persecute.

justasking4 does not recognize a visible Church of Authority created by Christ. You can “take it to the Church”, but since he believes in no such thing, how can it help?

The Holy Spirit is the only One who can open his eyes. To Him I have gone. This is as it should be. He has resisted all truth. He cannot resist the Spirit.

 

[guanophore]

Hey justasking 4 I don’t know what your problem is but several Catholics including myself have given you strong arguments based on scripture and the traditions of our church that powerfuly support the sacred teachings of our church.

. If you were a defense attorney everyone would end up in jail. If you were a prosecuting attorney everyone would be set free.

You are the living proof why there is so much disunity among Protestants ( 30,000 no less.) These numbers indicate that there is something wrong. Besides that you get on my nerves. You are like a painful hemorroid that won’t go away.

If this is the case, then ja4 has accomplished his goal. He is not here to learn about Catholicism, but to convince Catholics to abandon the teachers that are deceiving them and adopt the Bible as the soul rule of faith. If he cannot pursuade people here to give up the Tradition, then perhaps he can do so by being painful?

 

[paarsurrey]

Hi

I think this not the way the religious discussion should be made. Please don’t be personal.

[16:126] **Call unto the way of thy Lord with wisdom and goodly exhortation and argue with them in a way that is best. Surely, thy Lord knows best who has strayed from His way; and He also knows those who are rightly guided. **
[16:127] And if you decide to punish the oppressors, then punish them to the extent to which you have been wronged; but if you show patience then, surely, that is best for those who are patient. **
[16:128] And, O Prophet, endure thou with patience; and verily thy patience is possible only with the help of Allah. And grieve not for them, nor feel distressed because of their evil designs.
[16:129] Verily, Allah is with those who are righteous and those who do good. **
www3.alislam.org/showChapter.jsp?ch=16&verse=119

Thanks

 

[guanophore]

Hi

I think this not the way the religious discussion should be made. Thanks

This is an interesting comment from a person who comes to a Catholic Board for the purpose of denying all the basic tenents of the Catholic faith!

 

[justasking4]

Hey justasking 4 I don’t know what your problem is but several Catholics including myself have given you strong arguments based on scripture and the traditions of our church that powerfuly support the sacred teachings of our church.

. If you were a defense attorney everyone would end up in jail. If you were a prosecuting attorney everyone would be set free.

You are the living proof why there is so much disunity among Protestants ( 30,000 no less.) These numbers indicate that there is something wrong. Besides that you get on my nerves. You are like a painful hemorroid that won’t go away.

:banghead:

 

[justasking4]

sterryfamily;3122380]JA4 - when you say scriptures, do you include the Didache and the Gospel of Peter? How about the Shepherd of Hermas or the Epsitles of St Clement?

These books are not scripture.

Or do you only accept as New Testament scripture those books that the Catholic Church (under the guidance of the Holy Spirit) included in the canon of the Bible?

Yes

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

Jesus was not wrong. He was God in the flesh. The Apostles were not they were used by Christ to write the NT Scriptures.

Justasking4:

Here again you are gravely mistaken.

The Apostles did NOT write the four Gospels that the Church chose out of many ‘Gospels’ for the canon.

The earliest WRITTEN copies referring to the Church are the letters of St Paul.

Robert

 

[justasking4]

Rbt Southwell;3128015]

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4

Jesus was not wrong. He was God in the flesh. The Apostles were not they were used by Christ to write the NT Scriptures.
Although the others may have had great minds they to could be wrong on various things. If these great men don’t have the scriptures to support them then they are wrong.

Rbt Southwell
Justasking4:

Here again you are gravely mistaken.

The Apostles did NOT write the four Gospels that the Church chose out of many ‘Gospels’ for the canon.

The earliest WRITTEN copies referring to the Church are the letters of St Paul.

Robert

I did not limit myself to the gospels but to the entire NT.

 

[justasking4]

qui est ce;3122053]You have read little, depend on no one but yourself for interpretation, formulate an opinion, tell me scholars for 2,000 years are wrong,

Is it not true the some fathers at times did not teach what the catholic church believes today? In other words does not the catholic church consider some of the fathers were wrong about some theological issues?

and then require I read all that has been written for 2,000 years on this subject in order to convince you?

You make this claim in post 137—“Well, all I can say to this is you don’t take the Bible and John 6 seriously. It is YOU who refuse to believe what has been believed for over 2,000 years by Catholics.” This kind of statement tells me you have a vast knowledge of the church for the past 2000 years.

Do you know ancient Greek, Hebrew, Aramic, Latin?

No. Do you?

Catholics have the Magesterium, so we don’t have to reinvent the wheel.

That may be.

The Apostles were the living Scriptures, so what they wrote and what they taught was infallibly inerrant in faith and morals. Did they sin? Of course.

The ECF’s, the saints I listed were students of the Apostles. They were not wrong, they were simply recording the practices of the early Christians, they wrote history, not the Bible. Luke and Mark were not Apostles. Mark and Luke never even met Jesus. Luke never even met an Apostle. He was a Genitle Syrian from Antioch. He had limited knowledge of Palestine and Jewish customs and culture. How did he come to write inspired?

Are you saying that the writings of the fathers are at the same level as the Scripture?

and?

Which specific books where already in place? The Jews threw out several books in 60 AD, because they found no Hebrew versions.

I was unaware of this. Do you have the source for this?

Hebrew fragments of the thrown out books have been found in Qumran in the 1940’s.

What about the NT?

What about it?

Until you open the eyes of your heart (ie your soul), you will continue to be a Saul, with scales covering your eyes.

 

[CTA1967]

Or do you only accept as New Testament scripture those books that the Catholic Church (under the guidance of the Holy Spirit) included in the canon of the Bible?

Wait, wouldn’t that mean you accept the Deuterocanonical books as well? They were originally accepted in the Catholic Church.

 

[CTA1967]

Or do you only accept as New Testament scripture those books that the Catholic Church (under the guidance of the Holy Spirit) included in the canon of the Bible?

Wait, then what is your logic for rejecting the Deuterocanonical books? Was the Church only inspired when it was compiling the New Testament?

 

[justasking4]

Wait, then what is your logic for rejecting the Deuterocanonical books? Was the Church only inspired when it was compiling the New Testament?

Those books did not have the full support of the church and there were many who did not accept them as being fully inspired-inerrant. There are some serious problems with these books.

I wouldn’t say the church was “inspired” when compiling the canon but used a number of methods to determine which should be in the canon and which should not.

 

[LittleDeb]

Those books did not have the full support of the church and there were many who did not accept them as being fully inspired-inerrant. There are some serious problems with these books.

Please define “full support.” They have been in Scripture continuously since the canon was determined around 400 AD. 1600 years is a long time to not have “full support.” And those “serious problems” you note, really aren’t. They were made up to justify removing them. We’ve had threads on Judith and the single historical error that makes it supposedly uninspired.

Followers of the Reformation tout these “errors” while blithely ignoring those “errors” that atheists point out about the rest of Scripture. That inconsistency within Protestantism makes all of Christianity look like blind followers.

 

[alanjeddy]

Those books did not have the full support of the church and there were many who did not accept them as being fully inspired-inerrant. There are some serious problems with these books.

I wouldn’t say the church was “inspired” when compiling the canon but used a number of methods to determine which should be in the canon and which should not.

You have the audacity to question the one true church, and Luther broke from us, without looking at all your splintered Protestant faiths? Do you really have any room to talk? You have zero credibility i am sorry. You are not going to change any Catholics’ beliefs with your feeble attacks. You are part of 30,000 splintered faiths. You have no credibility. who is going to listen to you except the birds of a feather who flock together in total disunity. The Protestants.