Trouble with anti-Catholic book/website

[Rightlydivide]

If you believe in bible alone then all of the inspired books list should also be contained in the bible.The problem is that the list is not there wich would contradict the bible alone man made doctrine.Of course the bible is inspired by God but the question is if your bible is complete or not.I know mine is complete.Jesus used the septuagint which had the 7 books that your bible does not.Catholicism does not teach that we need a list.These will only apply to you since you are the one that believes in the bible alone man made doctrine.The RCC doesnt teach bible alone.I know that my bible is inspired by God and was put in the canon by the authority of the church that he left behind.I wonder who put the canon of the bible you own? Since you hate tradition so much then why dont you put your bible in the trash because what you hold is pure Oral Tradition in written form.Also I wonder what did the first Chirstians do without a bible before it was put in one book by the council of Matt 16:18.1 Cor 15:3-4
For I handed on (paredoka) to you as of first importance what I also received …
2 Tim 2:2
And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust (parathou) to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well.The Council of Hippo, a local north Africa council of bishops created the list of the Old and New Testament books in 393 which is the same as the Roman Catholic list today.
The final infallible definition of canonical books for Roman Catholic Christians came from the Council of Trent in 1556 in the face of the errors of the Reformers who rejected seven Old Testament books from the canon of scripture to that time. There was no canon of scripture in the early Church; there was no Bible. The Bible is the book of the Church; she is not the Church of the Bible. It was the Church–her leadership, faithful people–guided by the authority of the Spirit of Truth which discovered the books inspired by God in their writing. The Church did not create the canon; she discerned the canon. Fixed canons of the Old and New Testaments, hence the Bible, were not known much before the end of the 2nd and early 3rd century. Scripture Alone Disproves “Scripture Alone”

Anyway what is the pillar of foundation and truth?

The Bible of Jesus had the seven books? Fascinating. Care to prove that? The earliest copies of the LXX contain different books and neither one contains “all seven”…do they? And that is 300 years later at least.

 

[crazycow]

If does apply then read all of these scriptures.Bible alone is not taught at all in the bible and faith alone is not taught either.

Tim. 3:14 - Protestants usually use 2 Tim. 3:16-17 to prove that the Bible is the sole authority of God’s word. But examining these texts disproves their claim. Here, Paul appeals to apostolic tradition right before the Protestants’ often quoted verse 2 Tim. 3:16-17. Thus, there is an appeal to tradition before there is an appeal to the Scriptures, and Protestants generally ignore this fact.

2 Tim. 3:15 - Paul then appeals to the sacred writings of Scripture referring to the Old Testament Scriptures with which Timothy was raised (not the New Testament which was not even compiled at the time of Paul’s teaching). This verse also proves that one can come to faith in Jesus Christ without the New Testament.

2 Tim. 3:16 - this verse says that Scripture is “profitable” for every good work, but not exclusive. The word “profitable” is “ophelimos” in Greek. “Ophelimos” only means useful, which underscores that Scripture is not mandatory or exclusive. Protestants unbiblically argue that profitable means exclusive.

2 Tim. 3:16 - further, the verse “all Scripture” uses the words “pasa graphe” which actually means every (not all) Scripture. This means every passage of Scripture is useful. Thus, the erroneous Protestant reading of “pasa graphe” would mean every single passage of Scripture is exclusive. This would mean Christians could not only use “sola Matthew,” or “sola Mark,” but could rely on one single verse from a Gospel as the exclusive authority of God’s word. This, of course, is not true and even Protestants would agree. Also, “pasa graphe” cannot mean “all of Scripture” because there was no New Testament canon to which Paul could have been referring, unless Protestants argue that the New Testament is not being included by Paul.

2 Tim. 3:16 - also, these inspired Old Testament Scriptures Paul is referring to included the deuterocanonical books which the Protestants removed from the Bible 1,500 years later.

2 Tim. 3:17 - Paul’s reference to the “man of God” who may be complete refers to a clergyman, not a layman. It is an instruction to a bishop of the Church. So, although Protestants use it to prove their case, the passage is not even relevant to most of the faithful.

2 Tim. 3:17 - further, Paul’s use of the word “complete” for every good work is “artios” which simply means the clergy is “suitable” or “fit.” Also, artios does not describe the Scriptures, it describes the clergyman. So, Protestants cannot use this verse to argue the Scriptures are complete.

James 1:4 - steadfastness also makes a man “perfect (teleioi) and complete (holoklepoi), lacking nothing.” This verse is important because "teleioi"and “holoklepoi” are much stronger words than “artios,” but Protestants do not argue that steadfastness is all one needs to be a Christian.

Titus 3:8 - good deeds are also “profitable” to men. For Protestants especially, profitable cannot mean “exclusive” here.

2 Tim 2:21- purity is also profitable for “any good work” (“pan ergon agathon”). This wording is the same as 2 Tim. 3:17, which shows that the Scriptures are not exclusive, and that other things (good deeds and purity) are also profitable to men.

Col. 4:12 - prayer also makes men “fully assured.” No where does Scripture say the Christian faith is based solely on a book.

2 Tim. 3:16-17 - Finally, if these verses really mean that Paul was teaching sola Scriptura to the early Church, then why in 1 Thess. 2:13 does Paul teach that he is giving Revelation from God orally? Either Paul is contradicting his own teaching on sola Scriptura, or Paul was not teaching sola Scriptura in 2 Tim. 3:16-17. This is a critical point which Protestants cannot reconcile with their sola Scriptura position.

Of course it applies. We have scripture long before any little African synod.
The devil. No I think he was a Unitarian. I will have to check…
Shame on Matthew and John for writing then!!! I bet Jesus was UPSET!!

 

[cfrancis]

The Bible of Jesus had the seven books? Fascinating. Care to prove that? The earliest copies of the LXX contain different books and neither one contains “all seven”…do they? And that is 300 years later at least.

Hey, this is fun. Let’s try it:

Jesus used an OT (they didn’t have a “bible”) with only 39 books? Care to prove that?

 

[jmcrae]

Completely fanciful. Shockingly inaccurate actually. Site your source.
We are talking about people who believed Sola Scriptura.

No, they most certainly did not believe in Sola Scriptura. They believed that God was locuting personally unto them, and they changed and altered the words of Scripture to suit the supposed locutions of God that were coming into their minds.

If either of them were around today, I seriously doubt you would be ordaining them to preach in your church - in fact, if they showed up at your church door, you would be contacting your staff social worker; not your Session committee chair.

 

[jmcrae]

Let us try this once more. If Mary died, round guess, 50 AD at the latest and John was on Patmos in 80 AD. Where was she those other thirty years? Why are you saying that this person, even if it is Mary, is going straight from Acts to the 12th chapter of Revelation?
So the dragon appeared…is already in heaven but Mary is not? Why do you say that?

I didn’t. Read what I wrote again, and deal with what I actually said.

 

[Rightlydivide]

I didn’t. Read what I wrote again, and deal with what I actually said.

Here is what you said, if this is what you mean:

Why does it have to say that? First, she is the cenacle, and then she is in Heaven, in her body. Did she walk to Heaven? Or was she assumed into Heaven? (Which is more likely, to your way of thinking?)

She is in Acts. Gotcha. Then you guys say she was assumed when exactly?
Timeline here

 

[Rightlydivide]

No, they most certainly did not believe in Sola Scriptura. They believed that God was locuting personally unto them, and they changed and altered the words of Scripture to suit the supposed locutions of God that were coming into their minds.

If either of them were around today, I seriously doubt you would be ordaining them to preach in your church - in fact, if they showed up at your church door, you would be contacting your staff social worker; not your Session committee chair.

Jan Hus
From the Columbia Encyclopedia:

The pope excommunicated Huss, who—to save Prague from the papal interdict—retired to a castle near Tabor. During his two years of exile he wrote his chief works, including the De ecclesia, which increasingly reflected Wyclif’s influence. He denied the infallibility of an immoral pope, asserted the ultimate authority of Scripture over the church, and accorded the state the right and duty to supervise the church. Because of these ideas he is generally considered a forerunner of the Protestant Reformation.

 

[jmcrae]

She is in Acts. Gotcha. Then you guys say she was assumed when exactly?
Timeline here

Unknown, but by 90 AD, she is the Ark in Heaven - she is physically, bodily present in Heaven. Wearing a crown.

How did she get there?

(By the way, nobody is saying that Revelation records her Assumpion into Heaven, nor her Crowning - but the fact that she is there in Heaven, and is wearing her crown, shows that these events occurred at some point prior to John’s experience - since if they had not occurred, then she wouldn’t be there (and John could not have seen her), nor would she be wearing a crown (and John could not have described the appearance of her crown).)

 

[cfrancis]

She is in Acts. Gotcha. Then you guys say she was assumed when exactly?
Timeline here

Exactly why do we need an exact date - or even a close date - of her assumption?
Perhaps you can give us an exact date of, say, the writing of the Gospel of Matthew.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Unknown, but by 90 AD, she is the Ark in Heaven - she is physically, bodily present in Heaven. Wearing a crown.

How did she get there?

(By the way, nobody is saying that Revelation records her Assumpion into Heaven, nor her Crowning - but the fact that she is there in Heaven, and is wearing her crown, shows that these events occurred at some point prior to John’s experience - since if they had not occurred, then she wouldn’t be there (and John could not have seen her), nor would she be wearing a crown (and John could not have described the appearance of her crown).)

OHHHHHHHHHHHH
I see.
Ok ok.
Let us try this.
Because I do not know what you teach.
Is Peter in heaven now?
Do you also think that Moses was assumed into heaven? He appeared after his death as well.

 

[justasking4]

Unknown, but by 90 AD, she is the Ark in Heaven - she is physically, bodily present in Heaven. Wearing a crown.

How did she get there?

(By the way, nobody is saying that Revelation records her Assumpion into Heaven, nor her Crowning - but the fact that she is there in Heaven, and is wearing her crown, shows that these events occurred at some point prior to John’s experience - since if they had not occurred, then she wouldn’t be there (and John could not have seen her), nor would she be wearing a crown (and John could not have described the appearance of her crown).)

Here is what some Catholic scholars say about her death and assumption:

"The Roman Catholic writer Eamon Duffy concedes that, ‘there is, clearly, no historical evidence whatever for it …’ (Eamon Duffy, What Catholics Believe About Mary (London: Catholic Truth Society, 1989), p. 17). For centuries in the early Church there is complete silence regarding Mary’s end. The first mention of it is by Epiphanius in 377 A.D. and he specifically states that no one knows what actually happened to Mary. He lived near Palestine and if there were, in fact, a tradition in the Church generally believed and taught he would have affirmed it. But he clearly states that ‘her end no one knows.’ These are his words:
But if some think us mistaken, let them search the Scriptures. They will not find Mary’s death; they will not find whether she died or did not die; they will not find whether she was buried or was not buried … Scripture is absolutely silent [on the end of Mary] … For my own part, I do not dare to speak, but I keep my own thoughts and I practice silence … The fact is, Scripture has outstripped the human mind and left [this matter] uncertain … Did she die, we do not know … Either the holy Virgin died and was buried … Or she was killed … Or she remained alive, since nothing is impossible with God and He can do whatever He desires; for her end no-one knows.’ (Epiphanius, Panarion, Haer. 78.10-11, 23. Cited by juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. II (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), pp. 139-40).

In addition to Epiphanius, there is Jerome who also lived in Palestine and does not report any tradition of an assumption. Isidore of Seville, in the seventh century, echoes Epiphanius by saying that no one has any information at all about Mary’s death. The patristic testimony is therefore non-existent on this subject. Even Roman Catholic historians readily admit this fact:
In these conditions we shall not ask patristic thought—as some theologians still do today under one form or another—to transmit to us, with respect to the Assumption, a truth received as such in the beginning and faithfully communicated to subsequent ages. Such an attitude would not fit the facts…Patristic thought has not, in this instance, played the role of a sheer instrument of transmission’ (Juniper B. Carol, O.F.M., ed., Mariology, Vol. I (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1955), p. 154)."

 

[cfrancis]

OHHHHHHHHHHHH
I see.
Ok ok.
Let us try this.
Because I do not know what you teach.
Is Peter in heaven now?
Do you also think that Moses was assumed into heaven? He appeared after his death as well.

Ohhhhhhh…OK, I see.
Moses, hmm?
Where did Moses appear again? I was not aware Moses was involved in a vision of heaven.

 

[crazycow]

I think Mr. Rightlydivide can not see when he has fall in his own doctrine of illusion.Anyway it seem he just likes to hear himself talk.The point of REv 12 is that it prooves the Assumption and crowning of Mary.It does not matter how it happen,ect.It is in the bible and is the word of God.Do you call the Virgin Mary Blessed and mother? Of course you like the run around instead of answering directly.If bible alone and faith alone are not true the whole protestant view of thing falls in the floor.Bible cannot be without tradition but tradition can be without the bible because the bible came from oral tradition.

OHHHHHHHHHHHH
I see.
Ok ok.
Let us try this.
Because I do not know what you teach.
Is Peter in heaven now?
Do you also think that Moses was assumed into heaven? He appeared after his death as well.

 

[jmcrae]

OHHHHHHHHHHHH
I see.
Ok ok.
Let us try this.
Because I do not know what you teach.
Is Peter in heaven now?

His soul is in Heaven, but his body has not been resurrected, yet.

Do you also think that Moses was assumed into heaven? He appeared after his death as well.

I don’t know. It seems like a possibility, to me. I know that Elijah was, and he also appeared at the same time, so it is possible that Moses was, too - especially since no one can find his bones.

cfrancis:

Where did Moses appear again? I was not aware Moses was involved in a vision of heaven.

At the Transfiguration.

 

[Rightlydivide]

I think Mr. Rightlydivide can not see when he has fall in his own doctrine of illusion.Anyway it seem he just likes to hear himself talk.The point of REv 12 is that it prooves the Assumption and crowning of Mary.It does not matter how it happen,ect.It is in the bible and is the word of God.Do you call the Virgin Mary Blessed and mother? Of course you like the run around instead of answering directly.If bible alone and faith alone are not true the whole protestant view of thing falls in the floor.Bible cannot be without tradition but tradition can be without the bible because the bible came from oral tradition.

There is not one word that says she was assumed. You have a pregnant woman standing on a moon with a crown. If you think Mary was assumed pregnant, you could have a point. But you do not.

 

[justasking4]

crazycow;4238745]I think Mr. Rightlydivide can not see when he has fall in his own doctrine of illusion.Anyway it seem he just likes to hear himself talk.The point of REv 12 is that it prooves the Assumption and crowning of Mary.

Revelation 12 does not prove the assumption. Mary does not fit the details of Revelations 12. Here is what one Catholic scholar says about this:

“Raymond Brown and J.A. Fitzmyer, editors of the Jerome Biblical Commentary (2:482):
a woman: Most of the ancient commentators identified her with the Church; in the Middle Ages it was widely held that she represented Mary, the Mother of Jesus. Modern exegetes have generally adopted the older interpretation, with certain modifications.
In recent years several Catholics have championed the Marian interpretation. Numerous contextual details, however, are ill-suited to such an explanation. For example, we are scarcely to think that Mary endured the worst of the pains of childbirth (v. 2), that she was pursued into the desert after the birth of her child (6, 13ff.), or, finally, that she was persecuted through her other children (v. 17). The emphasis on the persecution of the woman is really appropriate only if she represents the Church, which is presented throughout the book as oppressed by the forces of evil, yet protected by God. Furthermore, the image of a woman is common in ancient Oriental secular literature as well as in the Bible (e.g., Is 50:1; Jer 50:12) as a symbol for a people, a nation, or a city. It is fitting, then, to see in this woman the People of God, the true Israel of the OT and NT.”

It does not matter how it happen,ect.It is in the bible and is the word of God.Do you call the Virgin Mary Blessed and mother? Of course you like the run around instead of answering directly.If bible alone and faith alone are not true the whole protestant view of thing falls in the floor.Bible cannot be without tradition but tradition can be without the bible because the bible came from oral tradition.

 

[Rightlydivide]

His soul is in Heaven, but his body has not been resurrected, yet.

I don’t know. It seems like a possibility, to me. I know that Elijah was, and he also appeared at the same time, so it is possible that Moses was, too - especially since no one can find his bones.

cfrancis:

At the Transfiguration.

I see we have a different view about the resurrections. Boy that would take awhile to unpack. They cannot find his bones because no one knows where he is buried.
Regardless, scripture teaches that people can appear after their death; without being assumed. Of course I understand you think they have to be assumed.
Interesting.
But we would have differing views on visions as I have stated.

 

[cfrancis]

Here is what some Catholic scholars say about her death and assumption:

The first mention of it is by Epiphanius in 377 A.D. and he specifically states that no one knows what actually happened to Mary. He lived near Palestine and if there were, in fact, a tradition in the Church generally believed and taught he would have affirmed it. But he clearly states that ‘her end no one knows.’ These are his words:
But if some think us mistaken, let them search the Scriptures. They will not find Mary’s death; they will not find whether she died or did not die; they will not find whether she was buried or was not buried … Scripture is absolutely silent [on the end of Mary] … For my own part, I do not dare to speak, but I keep my own thoughts and I practice silence … The fact is, Scripture has outstripped the human mind and left [this matter] uncertain … Did she die, we do not know … Either the holy Virgin died and was buried … Or she was killed … Or she remained alive, since nothing is impossible with God and He can do whatever He desires; for her end no-one knows.’ (Epiphanius, Panarion, Haer. 78.10-11, 23. Cited by juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. II (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), pp. 139-40).

JA4, you always have to be careful when pulling information from other sites; especially pay attention to those ellipses, for they tell you something was excluded. The next question should be: what was excluded?

From here:

But if some think us mistaken, let them search the Scriptures. They will not find whether she died or did not die; they will not find whether she was buried or was not buried. More than that: John journeyed to Asia, yet nowhere do we read that he took the Holy Virgin with him. Rather, Scripture is absolutely silent, because of the extraordinary nature of the prodigy, in order not to shock the minds of men. For my part, I do not dare to speak, but I keep my own thoughts and I practice silence. For it may be that somewhere we have found hints that it is impossible to discover the death of the holy, blessed one. On the one hand, you see, Simeon says of her, ‘And your own soul a sword shall pierce, that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed’ (Luke 2:35). On the other hand, when the Apocalypse of John says, ‘And the dragon hastened against the woman who had brought forth the male child, and there were given to her an eagle’s wings, and she was carried off into the wilderness, that the dragon might not seize her’ (Acts 12:13-14), it may be that this is fulfilled in her. However, I do not assert this absolutely, and I do not say that she remained immortal; but neither do I maintain stoutly that she died. The fact is, scripture had outstripped the human mind and left (this matter) uncertain, for the sake of that valued vessel without compare, to prevent anyone from harboring carnal thoughts in her regard. Did she die? We do not know. At all events, if she was buried, she had had no carnal intercourse.1
"Either the holy Virgin died and was buried, then her falling asleep was with honor, her death chaste, her crown that of virginity. Or she was killed, as it is written: ‘and your own soul a sword shall pierce,’ then her glory is among the martyrs and her holy body amid blessings, she through whom light rose over the world. Or she remained alive, since nothing is impossible with God and He can do whatever He desires, for her end no one knows."3

1 Epiphanius, Panarion, haer. 78, 23, in The Testimony of the Patristic Age Concerning Mary’s Death, Walter Burghardt, S.J., (Westminster, MD: Newman Press, 1957), 5-6.

Note how much was edited.

 

[justasking4]

JA4, you always have to be careful when pulling information from other sites; especially pay attention to those ellipses, for they tell you something was excluded. The next question should be: what was excluded?

From here:

But if some think us mistaken, let them search the Scriptures. They will not find whether she died or did not die; they will not find whether she was buried or was not buried. More than that: John journeyed to Asia, yet nowhere do we read that he took the Holy Virgin with him. Rather, Scripture is absolutely silent, because of the extraordinary nature of the prodigy, in order not to shock the minds of men. For my part, I do not dare to speak, but I keep my own thoughts and I practice silence. For it may be that somewhere we have found hints that it is impossible to discover the death of the holy, blessed one. On the one hand, you see, Simeon says of her, ‘And your own soul a sword shall pierce, that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed’ (Luke 2:35). On the other hand, when the Apocalypse of John says, ‘And the dragon hastened against the woman who had brought forth the male child, and there were given to her an eagle’s wings, and she was carried off into the wilderness, that the dragon might not seize her’ (Acts 12:13-14), it may be that this is fulfilled in her. However, I do not assert this absolutely, and I do not say that she remained immortal; but neither do I maintain stoutly that she died. The fact is, scripture had outstripped the human mind and left (this matter) uncertain, for the sake of that valued vessel without compare, to prevent anyone from harboring carnal thoughts in her regard. Did she die? We do not know. At all events, if she was buried, she had had no carnal intercourse.1
"Either the holy Virgin died and was buried, then her falling asleep was with honor, her death chaste, her crown that of virginity. Or she was killed, as it is written: ‘and your own soul a sword shall pierce,’ then her glory is among the martyrs and her holy body amid blessings, she through whom light rose over the world. Or she remained alive, since nothing is impossible with God and He can do whatever He desires, for her end no one knows."3

1 Epiphanius, Panarion, haer. 78, 23, in The Testimony of the Patristic Age Concerning Mary’s Death, Walter Burghardt, S.J., (Westminster, MD: Newman Press, 1957), 5-6.

Note how much was edited.

How does any of this change the fact we know nothing of her death nor of her assumption?

 

[cfrancis]

JM, if I’m not mistaken, Moses and Elijah appeared with Christ on the mount during the transfiguration. All that was seen was Christ, Moses and Elijah - which is far different than where and how Mary appeared to John. I was attempting to highlight the distinction, as RightlyDivide is keen on distinctions.