Where did YOU get your authority?

[SteveGC]

SIA,

I see you’re still up to your familiar antics, injecting your 20 million dollar question into apologetics discussions, “can you show me where I can find that in Scripture?”

First, let me ask, why do you bother asking this, when it is quite obvious that you’re not really open to, nor interested in, receiving valid and plausible scriptural evidence? Seems clear it’s your version of a bait & switch, but hey, that’s ok…alot of us here, on both sides, are guilty of that from time to time.

Secondly, I think you also afford yourself a certain confidence about your “show-me” challenges because you seem to accept only literal exegesis…only those things explicitly stated or very clearly implied. What you fail to take into account is that there are many many truths about Christianity which are merely implicit in Scripture, and one reason for this is that the authors realized that many things are assumed by the recipients of their teaching, things that go without explicitly saying. As you must realize, the audience and readers of the time period are far removed from our cultural understanding, and so to expect Scripture to illustrate clear, modern messages, readily understandable by someone who reads it without proper guidance, is foolish.

You see, SIA, the reason this isn’t obvious to you, and you have difficulty reconciling Scripture with the Catholic faith, is because you have separated yourself from the tradition. You were not meant to be separated as you are, and you can thank the so-called Reformers for that, but you are. The treasures hidden and implied in Scripture are much more clear to devout Catholics than they are to devout protestants, because we remain within that same tradition and teaching as the early audience of biblical teaching. You and so many others have chosen to remain outside of that tradition, and thus, you approach Scripture through the lens of modernity and expect revelation to come to you perfectly clear (literally). Of course, your response would probably be that we are duped into seeing Scripture exegesis the way we do, by the trance of Catholicism, but even you would have to admit that the likelihood of having millions of rational Christians duped by an “institution in Rome” is so highly implausible that it’s laughable.

Another reason you don’t see the Catholic faith in Scripture is that you expect everything to be written in the Bible. You’ve heard this argument before too, so I’ll spare you. Suffice it to say that your argument completely discredits the first 1000 years of Christianity, during which time most Christians were taught their faith by men, and didn’t have access to bibles. You would have to say that they were not Christian at all, which is an incredibly arrogant and unfounded claim.

Your most recent "show me’ injections have come on the heels of someone stating that the early church was Catholic, and/or certain people were Catholic. It looked to me like you were debating that the word Catholic couldn’t be found in the Bible. And you are so right. Did they use the word Catholic during that time? Nope. Was there a hierarchical Church? Yep. Was it in it’s infancy and look nothing like what it would mature to today in Rome and throughout the world? You bet. And so, for exactly the same reason you yourself are comfortable using the word Trinity, yet cannot show that word in the Bible, Catholics are quite comfortable stating that apostles and the Church were indeed Catholic, without worrying about showing that word to you either. These words which are used to describe the realities of Christianity were instituted later, by leaders of The Church.

God Bless

 

[SteveGC]

Hey guys, I have to take a break. My dear, dear aunt has passed away, and I need to get myself to Pennsylvania to be with my family. I’ll check on you all next week - I’m sure you can carry on. Thanks, Steve, Elvis. You have both given me much to ponder and research. Always a pleasure!

God be with you and your family, willingheart. And our prayers are with you. Safe travels.

 

[elvisman]

Hey guys, I have to take a break. My dear, dear aunt has passed away, and I need to get myself to Pennsylvania to be with my family. I’ll check on you all next week - I’m sure you can carry on. Thanks, Steve, Elvis. You have both given me much to ponder and research. Always a pleasure!

My thoughts and prayers are with you and your family.

 

[1234]

Peter is the authority. and the petros petra thing is passé. that is just the correct verb conjugation. it’s so obvious. he changed Simon’s name to peter, then he said upon Peter I will build my church. It’s like you’re saying he changed simon’s name to peter for no apparent reason, then said he’s building his church on somethign else also called rock. lol. obviously he changed simon’s name to peter then built his church on peter and the authority of peter. doesn’t make sense otherwise.

All of this begs the central question of why was Jesus speaking Greek. He was a Jew, talking to another Jew, Simon (Peter-to-be) among Jews. They spoke aramaic. So why does he start speaking Greek? Did he know Greek well enough to speak it? Did the others–Simon was a fisherman.

The entire thing sounds like a later interpolation by the early Christians, who, after the Jews rejected them, converted the gentiles–the Greek-speakers.

 

[SIA]

SIA,

I see you’re still up to your familiar antics, injecting your 20 million dollar question into apologetics discussions, “can you show me where I can find that in Scripture?”

First, let me ask, why do you bother asking this, when it is quite obvious that you’re not really open to, nor interested in, receiving valid and plausible scriptural evidence? Seems clear it’s your version of a bait & switch, but hey, that’s ok…alot of us here, on both sides, are guilty of that from time to time.

Secondly, I think you also afford yourself a certain confidence about your “show-me” challenges because you seem to accept only literal exegesis…only those things explicitly stated or very clearly implied. What you fail to take into account is that there are many many truths about Christianity which are merely implicit in Scripture, and one reason for this is that the authors realized that many things are assumed by the recipients of their teaching, things that go without explicitly saying. As you must realize, the audience and readers of the time period are far removed from our cultural understanding, and so to expect Scripture to illustrate clear, modern messages, readily understandable by someone who reads it without proper guidance, is foolish.

You see, SIA, the reason this isn’t obvious to you, and you have difficulty reconciling Scripture with the Catholic faith, is because you have separated yourself from the tradition. You were not meant to be separated as you are, and you can thank the so-called Reformers for that, but you are. The treasures hidden and implied in Scripture are much more clear to devout Catholics than they are to devout protestants, because we remain within that same tradition and teaching as the early audience of biblical teaching. You and so many others have chosen to remain outside of that tradition, and thus, you approach Scripture through the lens of modernity and expect revelation to come to you perfectly clear (literally). Of course, your response would probably be that we are duped into seeing Scripture exegesis the way we do, by the trance of Catholicism, but even you would have to admit that the likelihood of having millions of rational Christians duped by an “institution in Rome” is so highly implausible that it’s laughable.

Another reason you don’t see the Catholic faith in Scripture is that you expect everything to be written in the Bible. You’ve heard this argument before too, so I’ll spare you. Suffice it to say that your argument completely discredits the first 1000 years of Christianity, during which time most Christians were taught their faith by men, and didn’t have access to bibles. You would have to say that they were not Christian at all, which is an incredibly arrogant and unfounded claim.

Your most recent "show me’ injections have come on the heels of someone stating that the early church was Catholic, and/or certain people were Catholic. It looked to me like you were debating that the word Catholic couldn’t be found in the Bible. And you are so right. Did they use the word Catholic during that time? Nope. Was there a hierarchical Church? Yep. Was it in it’s infancy and look nothing like what it would mature to today in Rome and throughout the world? You bet. And so, for exactly the same reason you yourself are comfortable using the word Trinity, yet cannot show that word in the Bible, Catholics are quite comfortable stating that apostles and the Church were indeed Catholic, without worrying about showing that word to you either. These words which are used to describe the realities of Christianity were instituted later, by leaders of The Church.

God Bless

Why don’t you just simply show us where these claims can be squared with the Scriptures? Should be simple enough if they are true. No tongue lashing necessary here, just some good old fashioned Biblical proof, that’s all.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Why don’t you just simply show us where these claims can be squared with the Scriptures? Should be simple enough if they are true. No tongue lashing necessary here, just some good old fashioned Biblical proof, that’s all.

How sad that you (apparently) believe that if it isn’t in the Bible it “doesn’t count”. And here, from your profile, one would think you were, at least, Anglican and not Southern Baptist or some other Sola Scriptura sort.

Bear with me here on the analogy ~ The 44th President of the United States, in an historic moment for our country as well as the world at large, was inaugurated today. “So help me God”, the traditional final words of the oath of office, is not written in the Constitution but has been said by every President. Why? Because of TRADITION.

Formal documents ~ such as the Bible and also, in a different realm, the US Constitution ~ COMPLEMENT and are ENRICHED by the traditions pertaining to them that have been handed down over time. They do not supersede eachother, they complement eachother.

Most importantly ~ **They are not in conflict ** In the case of the Early Church, tradition is what was handed down BEFORE THERE WAS A BIBLE. In a similar way, the words spoken by Presidents taking the Oath of Office are not in CONFLICT with the Constitution. These things, although only TRADITIONAL serve to ENRICH.

Because the new President said the words “So Help me God” today, and since they are, technically, not in the Constitution, are you going to write a letter to the editor of your local paper tomorrow asking why the President said " So Help me God" at the end of the oath an giving your opinion about that? Or, perhaps, more radically, are you going to refuse to recognize him as President? because, after all, he said words that weren’t in the Constitution.

Of course, you can do any of that, but you’ll make a laughingstock of yourself in the process. But if you are so moved, go ahead. You will then expose yourself as one of those people in our country that is an atheist. Is that what you want to do?

Why do I bring up these two, seemingly disparate subjects? Because what they have in common is** tradition**. Most of the Inaugural Ceremony is not written into law, it’s TRADITION. In a similar way, although much more distant from us in time, the Early Church established traditions, handed down from the original Apostles, and eventually written down. These traditions enrich and expand our experience. The fact that one thing or another is not written down doesn’t change that.

SIA, I once was “you”, in a way of speaking. I was born and raised Episcopalian. If my Mother had had her way (she didn’t!) we would have found an Anglican High Church in our town. But I’ve been where you are, so when you sign yourself as having crossed the Thames, I get it.

My suggestion would be, simply put, don’t push aside Truth (and TRUTH in its essence is not a someTHING it is a someBODY, His Name is Jesus Christ ~ and I credit Fr. John Corapi for that information) for political expediency centuries in the past. That’s just silly! The Anglican church was, basically, founded to facilitate the marital problems of one man. And he’s dead. Why should you adopt their paradigm? What value is that to anyone? After, or perhaps during, the reign of Henry, the English Church proceeded to adopt some, but not all, of the trappings of Protestantism, leaving them in this strange in-between. Not Catholic, although claiming some of the trappings of Catholicism, but not truly Protestant either. I hope you didn’t go there just because you couldn’t make up your mind!

But if you cannot stop yourself from going the way you are going, please, at least stop this silly business about showing stuff to you in the Bible. EVEN YOUR FOUNDER (which is, in reality Henry VIII) wouldn’t have demanded that sort of thing because he had the knowledge and understanding of those things that ~ earlier in his life ~ obtained the title “Defender of the Faith” ~ something that the English Monarchy has yet to relinquish to this day. Don’t go there. You make a farce of yourself if you do.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Why don’t you just simply show us where these claims can be squared with the Scriptures? Should be simple enough if they are true. No tongue lashing necessary here, just some good old fashioned Biblical proof, that’s all.

Sia…sia

i think Sia believes that the Church is everyone who picks the SS and read. am i wrong Sia?

now what you have to tell us is where is that in the SS.

if this is true than we must disregard the Apostles because the NT had not been into existence yet. so Sia tell us where did you get your beliefs.

:knight2: :knight1:

 

[SIA]

Sia…sia

i think Sia believes that the Church is everyone who picks the SS and read. am i wrong Sia?

now what you have to tell us is where is that in the SS.

if this is true than we must disregard the Apostles because the NT had not been into existence yet. so Sia tell us where did you get your beliefs.

:knight2: :knight1:

Your wrong. You obviously don’t read the Scriptures for yourself and that is sad. My beliefs come from God’s inherant Word and the teachings of the Early Church. Where do yours come from?

 

[SIA]

How sad that you (apparently) believe that if it isn’t in the Bible it “doesn’t count”. And here, from your profile, one would think you were, at least, Anglican and not Southern Baptist or some other Sola Scriptura sort.

Bear with me here on the analogy ~ The 44th President of the United States, in an historic moment for our country as well as the world at large, was inaugurated today. “So help me God”, the traditional final words of the oath of office, is not written in the Constitution but has been said by every President. Why? Because of TRADITION.

Formal documents ~ such as the Bible and also, in a different realm, the US Constitution ~ COMPLEMENT and are ENRICHED by the traditions pertaining to them that have been handed down over time. They do not supersede eachother, they complement eachother.

Most importantly ~ **They are not in conflict ** In the case of the Early Church, tradition is what was handed down BEFORE THERE WAS A BIBLE. In a similar way, the words spoken by Presidents taking the Oath of Office are not in CONFLICT with the Constitution. These things, although only TRADITIONAL serve to ENRICH.

Because the new President said the words “So Help me God” today, and since they are, technically, not in the Constitution, are you going to write a letter to the editor of your local paper tomorrow asking why the President said " So Help me God" at the end of the oath an giving your opinion about that? Or, perhaps, more radically, are you going to refuse to recognize him as President? because, after all, he said words that weren’t in the Constitution.

Of course, you can do any of that, but you’ll make a laughingstock of yourself in the process. But if you are so moved, go ahead. You will then expose yourself as one of those people in our country that is an atheist. Is that what you want to do?

Why do I bring up these two, seemingly disparate subjects? Because what they have in common is** tradition**. Most of the Inaugural Ceremony is not written into law, it’s TRADITION. In a similar way, although much more distant from us in time, the Early Church established traditions, handed down from the original Apostles, and eventually written down. These traditions enrich and expand our experience. The fact that one thing or another is not written down doesn’t change that.

SIA, I once was “you”, in a way of speaking. I was born and raised Episcopalian. If my Mother had had her way (she didn’t!) we would have found an Anglican High Church in our town. But I’ve been where you are, so when you sign yourself as having crossed the Thames, I get it.

My suggestion would be, simply put, don’t push aside Truth (and TRUTH in its essence is not a someTHING it is a someBODY, His Name is Jesus Christ ~ and I credit Fr. John Corapi for that information) for political expediency centuries in the past. That’s just silly! The Anglican church was, basically, founded to facilitate the marital problems of one man. And he’s dead. Why should you adopt their paradigm? What value is that to anyone? After, or perhaps during, the reign of Henry, the English Church proceeded to adopt some, but not all, of the trappings of Protestantism, leaving them in this strange in-between. Not Catholic, although claiming some of the trappings of Catholicism, but not truly Protestant either. I hope you didn’t go there just because you couldn’t make up your mind!

But if you cannot stop yourself from going the way you are going, please, at least stop this silly business about showing stuff to you in the Bible. EVEN YOUR FOUNDER (which is, in reality Henry VIII) wouldn’t have demanded that sort of thing because he had the knowledge and understanding of those things that ~ earlier in his life ~ obtained the title “Defender of the Faith” ~ something that the English Monarchy has yet to relinquish to this day. Don’t go there. You make a farce of yourself if you do.

You are showing your ignorance unfortunately. I never said that all truth is contained in Scripture. But, I will say that all that is necessary for Salvation is contained in Scripture. After all, this was proclaimed during the Council of Trent as well. Simply put, if something is not contained in Scripture, it is not necessarily false, but if something is refuted by Scripture, then it is false. You know the difference. Use the reasoning God gave you instead of putting all of your trust into a man-made system and institution.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Your wrong. You obviously don’t read the Scriptures for yourself and that is sad. My beliefs come from God’s inherant Word and the teachings of the Early Church. Where do yours come from?

where is the Early Church Sia? who were they? it is very sad for those who does not know how to read. they might not be saved, right?

**St. Thomas Aquinas concurs: “To reject but one article of faith taught by the Church is enough to destroy faith as one mortal sin is enough to destroy charity…” **

 

[wisdomseeker]

You are showing your ignorance unfortunately. I never said that all truth is contained in Scripture. But, I will say that all that is necessary for Salvation is contained in Scripture. After all, this was proclaimed during the Council of Trent as well. Simply put, if something is not contained in Scripture, it is not necessarily false, but if something is refuted by Scripture, then it is false. You know the difference. Use the reasoning God gave you instead of putting all of your trust into a man-made system and institution.

Sia, who found your institution? how did it come about?

 

[SteveGC]

You are showing your ignorance unfortunately. I never said that all truth is contained in Scripture. But, I will say that all that is necessary for Salvation is contained in Scripture. After all, this was proclaimed during the Council of Trent as well. Simply put, if something is not contained in Scripture, it is not necessarily false, but if something is refuted by Scripture, then it is false. You know the difference. Use the reasoning God gave you instead of putting all of your trust into a man-made system and institution.

I’m not convinced that you don’t think all truth must be found in Scripture, as you claimed in the above post.
Recall that this discussion came about when you responded to this statement by elvisman:
“Peter and Paul were Catholic - some of the very first ones.”
To this, you asked:
“Can you show us where Scripture says that or is that just another one of those things that doesn’t have to be in Scripture?”

Forgive me, but this doesn’t sound as though you believe some truths are found outside of Scripture.

God Bless

 

[SIA]

Sia, who found your institution? how did it come about?

King Henry VIII and Thomas Cranmer founded it. I do not claim to be the one holy catholic and apostolic Church, but merely part of it. I don’t claim that my church is the one and only Church Christ founded. That isn’t what the Scriptures say now is it?

 

[SIA]

I’m not convinced that you don’t think all truth must be found in Scripture, as you claimed in the above post.
Recall that this discussion came about when you responded to this statement by elvisman:
“Peter and Paul were Catholic - some of the very first ones.”
To this, you asked:
“Can you show us where Scripture says that or is that just another one of those things that doesn’t have to be in Scripture?”

Forgive me, but this doesn’t sound as though you believe some truths are found outside of Scripture.

God Bless

That’s because you totally misunderstood what I said.

 

[SIA]

where is the Early Church Sia? who were they? Read Scripture; particularly The Acts of the Apostles it is very sad for those who does not know how to read. they might not be saved, right? Same can be said for those who cannot hear.

**St. Thomas Aquinas concurs: “To reject but one article of faith taught by the Church is enough to destroy faith as one mortal sin is enough to destroy charity…” **

 

[wisdomseeker]

SIA:
Sia. you did not answer my question. where is the Early Church? who were they? what happened to them?

or do you believe that after your church was found, the True Church fell of the face of the earth?

**
St. Thomas Aquinas concurs: “To reject but one article of faith taught by the Church is enough to destroy faith as one mortal sin is enough to destroy charity…”**

 

[wisdomseeker]

King Henry VIII and Thomas Cranmer founded it. I do not claim to be the one holy catholic and apostolic Church, but merely part of it. I don’t claim that my church is the one and only Church Christ founded. That isn’t what the Scriptures say now is it?

so you know Jesus did not build your church. good. at least you are honest.

no. the Scripture says One Church, One Body. how many bodies do you think Jesus has?

the reason you cant claim it, it is because you cant. you know the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, dont you?

**St. Thomas Aquinas concurs: “To reject but one article of faith taught by the Church is enough to destroy faith as one mortal sin is enough to destroy charity…” **

 

[SIA]

Sia. you did not answer my question. where is the Early Church? who were they? what happened to them?

**
St. Thomas Aquinas concurs: “To reject but one article of faith taught by the Church is enough to destroy faith as one mortal sin is enough to destroy charity…”**

The Early Church is spoken of in the Book of Acts and is where much of your church practice and our’s comes from. I know already that you believe that the Catholic church is the Early Church, but we certainly disagree there. I’ll bet that the Eastern Orthodox church would disagree as well.

 

[SIA]

so you know Jesus did not build your church. good. at least you are honest.

no. the Scripture says One Church, One Body. how many bodies do you think Jesus has?

the reason you cant claim it, it is because you cant. you know the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, dont you?

**St. Thomas Aquinas concurs: “To reject but one article of faith taught by the Church is enough to destroy faith as one mortal sin is enough to destroy charity…” **

Jesus didn’t build your church either. He didn’t build an institution at all. The universal Church is not a denomination.

I hold to the Gospel, not an institution. The Church is the pillar of truth, not a denomination but the universal Church that Christ founded. Scripture is very clear on that.

 

[wisdomseeker]

The Early Church is spoken of in the Book of Acts and is where much of your church practice and our’s comes from. I know already that you believe that the Catholic church is the Early Church, but we certainly disagree there. I’ll bet that the Eastern Orthodox church would disagree as well.

does it matter if you or EO dissagree? does it make it less True?

No it doesnt. because Truth cannot be hidden or undone.

if you got the Bible from the CC and you believe that the Bible is the True Book about Jesus, then you must admit that She is the Church built by Christ.

**St. Thomas Aquinas concurs: “To reject but one article of faith taught by the Church is enough to destroy faith as one mortal sin is enough to destroy charity…” **