Where is this taught in the bible?

[Brian_Culliton]

Here is some information:

The Assumption, etc.

Your post is pure conjecture and contains no concrete evidence whatsoever. You completely failed to demonstrate apostolic origins for the doctrine. This was not a doctrine in the early church; it is a complete fallacy. And to believe a pope that commands you to believe his unsubstantiated doctrine by threatening your salvation if you refuse is mind boggling to me.

For the sake of the lurker:

The main writing regarding the assumption of Mary is Transitus Beatae Mariae, which emerged in the late fifth century and was attributed to Melito of Sardis who lived in the third century. Interestingly in the late fifth century (around A.D. 494) Pope Gelasius officially condemned the writing as heretical, and the author condemned forever under the indissoluble bond of anathema. (Source, William Webster) It wasn’t until 1950 that this extraordinary claim was officially declared to be a dogma of the Roman Catholic faith. Pope Pius XII decreed Munificentissimus Deus, the official teaching of the assumption of Mary. In his decree, Pius sternly warns:

“Hence, if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic faith…It is forbidden to any man to change this, Our declaration, pronouncement, and definition or, by rash attempt, to oppose and counter it. If any man should presume to make such an attempt, let him know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.”

 

[pablope]

This is where you should say something. This is your opportunity to connect your “Sacred Traditions” to the apostles. Please tell us, what are the traditions and what else did Jesus teach that we cannot get from the Bible?

This will take a lot of historical searching and only a scholar can answer you, as people in this forum do not have the time to do this historical research. This is usually the tactic of Bible-only crowd, to get one exasperated enough to give up, which I suspect this question is one. Beside, the Apostles lived only short lives, as John was the only one who died naturally. Also, their mission was to spread God’s word, not worry about Traditions. What came out of their teachings, I believe is in the works of their successors.

Besides, in our previous question and answer, you unwittingly used Tradition, when you cited a quote from Iraneous for the answer to the pillar and ground of the Church as being the Gospel and spirit of life, not the Bible. Unwittingly too, when you agreed to my supposition that this refers to Christ, weren’t we using the CC way…Magisterium, Oral and the written…all taken together. The word Gospel as referring to Christ is not in the Bible (titles not included, only verses) but in the teachings, “spirit of life” maybe but could not cite a verse (maybe you can)…and I, indirectly acting as the Magisterium, parted the Church teaching to you…and you agreeing with it.

 

[steve_b]

What some Protestant churches believe is apparently the same as what some Catholics believe. How many Catholics see nothing wrong with abortion or gay rights or stem cell research? How many Catholic politicians separate their faith from their politics in order to justify supporting such things? I think you are being very hypocritical here. I have no more to do with what some churches believe than you do with what liberal Catholics believe.

Catholics who do the things you say, may in reality might not be Catholic anymore.
read these 4 entries from the Catechism, particularly #2
ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=abortion&xsubmit=Search&s=SS
B:

Catholic teaching is not always in line with Scripture. How can one justify from Scripture the assertion of Pope Pius XII that Mary was assumed into heaven?

Rev 11:19, 12:1…shows her in heaven
B:

This is something I was told I must believe as a Catholic, why? I can find no justification for it in Scripture or church history. And that is just one of many examples.

Show from scripture, chapter and verse, that only what is written in scripture, is to be believed and nothing else, regarding faith.

Since the subject is where is that taught in the bible, give chapter and verse that gives you the okay to dissent and divide/leave the Catholic Church?

 

[steve_b]

This is where you should say something. This is your opportunity to connect your “Sacred Traditions” to the apostles. Please tell us, what are the traditions and what else did Jesus teach that we cannot get from the Bible?

Ever read the ECF’s who were taught directly by an apostle? All that was oral teaching from an apostle. Take for example St Ignatius of Antioch, disciple of St John.

Have you ever read the following in scripture?

• The Church of Rome holds the presidency
• Do nothing without the bishop. Where the bishop is there is the Catholic Church
• Let that eucharist be considered valid which is under the bishop or him to whom he commits it

Or Irenaeus who was a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of St John. Irenaeus wrote

we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolic tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

Where did Irenaeus get this underwstanding? Who did he learn from? Polycarp who was a disciple of St John. Ignatius who was a disciple of St John. It was also tradition passed on from Peter and Paul through the Church of Rome.

 

[PJM]

=Brian Culliton;7200707]What some Protestant churches believe is apparently the same as what some Catholics believe. How many Catholics see nothing wrong with abortion or gay rights or stem cell research? How many Catholic politicians separate their faith from their politics in order to justify supporting such things? I think you are being very hypocritical here. I have no more to do with what some churches believe than you do with what liberal Catholics believe.

Catholic teaching is not always in line with Scripture. How can one justify from Scripture the assertion of Pope Pius XII that Mary was assumed into heaven? This is something I was told I must believe as a Catholic, why? I can find no justification for it in Scripture or church history. And that is just one of many examples.

Hi Brian; and why do you suppose that is?

Might it be that you don’t correctly or fully understand what scripture DOES SAY? [Show ME where the bible talks about Catholics, Protestants or the Blessed Trinity; using those identical term:shrug:]

The second largest “religious” group in the USA is “FALLEN AWAY” catholics. It is these folks very likely heading to hell if they don’t repent and convert that your listening too. NOT Informed, Practicing Catholics like myself. **READ Heb. 4:6-10 **speaking precisely to this fact.

Then look up the final verses in John chapters 20 and 21. Take note that John explains NOT everything is written in the bible [one of the Proofs why Sola Scriptoria can’t be true]

Then go back and review Matt.16: 15-19 and Matt. 15:18. Note the words “Bind and Loose.” At the TIME WHEN SPOKEN BY CHRIST these were common Rabbitical Terms of COMPLETE GOVERNANCE AUTHORITY; and were inforceable at LAW.

Christ who is a PERFECT GOD carefully choose all the words that He used. In this instance Jesus had just empowered Peter to RUN independently; His new Church [SINGULAR]. Later he pssed this authority on the the rest of the Apostles. WHY?

Because Jesus KNEW [Matt.16:21… see how closely it follows the apointment] that He would suffer and die… In Mat.28:19-20 God assigned the task of “teaching the entire world” to His Apostles. Thus we can know that God intends for the Authority given to Peter and the Apostles to carry forward in order to complete his assignment.

Mary, the very MOTHER OF GOD, has then an now a Secondary Role to Jesus. WHY?

1. Because Jesus is God and Mary is NOT
2. In order to FOCUS on Jesus and His tteaching and Sacrifie and not “muddy” th message.

BUT being “The Mother of God” comes with BOTH special and unique priveledges and responsibilites takt ONLY God can assign and ONLY God Himself can accomplish.

It’s interestering that one such s yourself would accept that Enod and Elisha were taken up to heaven in the OT; BUT Mary THE MOTHER OF GOD; you queston. Why is that?

Is Mary as holy as these two good servants of God?

Does God not have the power and authority to do this.

Or perhaps, you feel that just anyone could have been the Mother of God?

Could, would God not be so GRATEFUL as to reward Mary for her humility, COMPLETE Obedience and SUFFERING our Lords Passion WITH HIM, in such a way?

Pray about it.

 

[pablope]

Ever read the ECF’s who were taught directly by an apostle? All that was oral teaching from an apostle. Take for example St Ignatius of Antioch, disciple of St John.

Have you ever read the following in scripture?

• The Church of Rome holds the presidency
• Do nothing without the bishop. Where the bishop is there is the Catholic Church
• Let that eucharist be considered valid which is under the bishop or him to whom he commits it

Or Irenaeus who was a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of St John. Irenaeus wrote

we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolic tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

Where did Irenaeus get this underwstanding? Who did he learn from? Polycarp who was a disciple of St John. Ignatius who was a disciple of St John. It was also tradition passed on from Peter and Paul through the Church of Rome.

I was just thinking about this. But the Bible was also borne of Tradition. The OT books were passed on orally before being written.

The Gospels were from oral accounts of the Apostles before being written. TRADITION, what was already accepted by the Church was one of the factors used in compiling the canon of the Bible.

 

[wmscott]

You know, I was hoping Brian would do us the courtesy to answer the questions put forth to him instead of dodging them and in response spewing misinformation, anti-Catholic falsehoods, and plain old name calling. But I guess if your position is built out of a house of cards, all you can do is divert the issue. It is obvious that Brian has a chip on his shoulders regarding the Beautiful Catholic Faith and deserves no more of my time. I shake the dust from my feet against him.

 

[steve_b]

First off, sola scriptura does not deny authority to the church but such authority must be exercised subject to verification by scripture.

Please provide the chapter and verse from scripture that supports that understanding.
SC:

The church cannot define anything as necessary that is not found in scripture.

Please provide chapter and verse from scripture that supports that position
SC:

Many things can be taught, believed or practiced that are not in scripture, but they cannot be contrary to scripture or required for belief.

Contrary to scripture, is different than not being in scripture.
SC:

There are a number of passages that make teaching and practice subject to scrutiny by individuals.

(Act 17:11 NASB)

Here the Apostle Paul was teaching but the people are praised for verifying his teachings with scripture, even if it was just the Old Testament.

Circumcision was required in the OT to be in the covanent. The NT it is baptism. How are the people to verify this in scripture? They can’t. In fact, circumcision as Paul says later, means nothing. Do you think THAT didn’t put a hitch in their getalong?
SC:

(1Co 4:6 NASB)

Here it is seen that the written word places boundaries on what can be done.

As in, no man can contradict what is written
SC:

(1Th 5:19-22 NASB)

What need would there be for us to examine everything carefully if we could just rely on the church to tell us?

How do you get that from

19* Do not quench the Spirit, 20* do not despise prophesying, 21* but test everything; hold fast what is good, 22 abstain from every form of evil.
SC:

(Heb 8:10-11 NASB)

God has written on our hearts and we have no need for someone to teach us.

Are you serious?
SC:

(1Jn 2:27 NASB)

God’s annointing teaches us all and we don’t need a teacher.

That’s not what that passage means at all.

24 Let what you heard from the beginning abide in you. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, then you will abide in the Son and in the Father. 25 And this is what he has promised us, * eternal life. 26 I write this to you about those who would deceive you; 27* but the anointing which you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that any one should teach you;

Do you see what is going on here? They were taught correctly the first time. But there are dopes and screballs who come in later who want to undo what has been accurately taught to them by an apostle. John isn’t saying they don’t need teachers. He is saying They don’t need THOSE goofballs who come in to deceive and overturn what they have learned. John is saying they don’t need THOSE.

Did you notice there is a condition? It begins with if/then

 

[steve_b]

I was just thinking about this. But the Bible was also borne of Tradition. The OT books were passed on orally before being written.

The Gospels were from oral accounts of the Apostles before being written. TRADITION, what was already accepted by the Church was one of the factors used in compiling the canon of the Bible.

True. The NT scriptures were written in, by, for, and canonized by the Catholic Church.

 

[pablope]

You know, I was hoping Brian would do us the courtesy to answer the questions put forth to him instead of dodging them and in response spewing misinformation, anti-Catholic falsehoods, and plain old name calling. But I guess if your position is built out of a house of cards, all you can do is divert the issue. It is obvious that Brian has a chip on his shoulders regarding the Beautiful Catholic Faith and deserves no more of my time. I shake the dust from my feet against him.

Agreed. That is why I did not bother to quote verses anymore as it would result in more counter verses and arguments, ad infinitum. If you saw his previous posts and my response to his question, he cited Irenaous for an answer to his question, not the Bible, so he unwittingly also gives credence to the Traditions.

 

[Nicea325]

I do; and you have [T]raditions that you claim were handed down from the apostles. I would just like for you to acknowledge the fact that none of them can actually be traced to the apostles.

Apparently you don’t! I do not accept your poor understanding as a fact. Apparently you have not done your homework.

Tradition / Church Fathers

The Word of God in Oral Apostolic Tradition

‘If I do not find it in the ancient Scriptures, I will not believe the Gospel; on my saying to them, It is written, they answered me, That remains to be proved. But to me Jesus Christ is in the place of all that is ancient: His cross, and death and resurrection, and the faith which is by Him are undefiled monuments of antiquity…’ Ignatius ofAntioch, Epistle to the Philadelphians 8,2 (c. A.D. 110).

‘Follow the bishop, all of you, as Jesus Christ follows his Father, and the presbyterium as the Apostles. As for the deacons, respect them as the Law of God. Let no one do anything with reference to the Church without the bishop. Only that Eucharist may be regarded as legitimate which is celebrated with the bishop or his delegate presiding. Where the bishop is, there let the community be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.’ Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Symyrnaens 8 (c. A.D. 110).

‘The apostles at that time first preached the Gospel but later by the will of God, they delivered it to us in the Scriptures, that it might be the foundation and pillar of our faith.’ Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3,1 (inter A.D. 180/199).

‘Since, therefore, the tradition from the apostles does thus exist in the Church, and is permanent among us, let us revert to the Scriptural proof furnished by those apostles who did also write the Gospel, in which they recorded the doctrine regarding God, pointing out that our Lord Jesus Christ is the truth, and that no lie is in Him.’ Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3,5,1 (inter A.D. 180/199).

"Through none others know we the disposition of our salvation, than those through whom the gospel came to us, first heralding it, then by the will of God delivering to us the Scriptures, which were to be the foundation and pillar of our faith…But when, the heretics are Scriptures, as if they were wrong, and unauthoritative, and were variable, and the truth could not be extracted from them by those who were ignorant of Tradition…And when we challenge them in turn what that tradition, which is from the Apostles, which is guarded by the succession of elders in the churches, they oppose themselves to Tradition, saying that they are wiser, not only than those elders, but even than the Apostles. The Tradition of the Apostles, manifested ‘on the contrary’ in the whole world, is open in every Church to all who see the truth…And, since it is a long matter in a work like this to enumerate these successions, we will confute them by pointing to the Tradition of that greatest and most ancient and universally known Church, founded and constituted at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, a tradition which she has had and a faith which she proclaims to all men from those Apostles.’ Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3,1-3 (inter A.D. 180/199).

Examples of Jesus’ and the Apostles’ Reliance on Oral Tradition

Matt. 2:23 - the prophecy “He shall be a Nazarene” is oral tradition. It is not found in the Old Testament. This demonstrates that the apostles relied upon oral tradition and taught by oral tradition.

Matt 23:2 - Jesus relies on the oral tradition of acknowledging Moses’ seat of authority (which passed from Moses to Joshua to the Sanhedrin). This is not recorded in the Old Testament.

John 19:26; 20:2; 21:20,24 - knowing that the “beloved disciple” is John is inferred from Scripture, but is also largely oral tradition.

Acts 20:35 - Paul relies on the oral tradition of the apostles for this statement (“it is better to give than to receive”) of Jesus. It is not recorded in the Gospels.

1 Cor. 7:10 - Paul relies on the oral tradition of the apostles to give the charge of Jesus that a wife should not separate from her husband.

1 Cor. 10:4 - Paul relies on the oral tradition of the rock following Moses. It is not recorded in the Old Testament. See Exodus 17:1-17 and Num. 20:2-13.

Eph 5:14 - Paul relies on oral tradition to quote an early Christian hymn - “awake O sleeper rise from the dead and Christ shall give you light.”

Heb. 11:37 - the author of Hebrews relies on the oral tradition of the martyrs being sawed in two. This is not recorded in the Old Testament.

Jude 9 - Jude relies on the oral tradition of the Archangel Michael’s dispute with satan over Moses’ body. This is not found in the Old Testament.

Jude 14-15 - Jude relies on the oral tradition of Enoch’s prophecy which is not recorded in the Old Testament.

 

[Nicea325]

Your post is pure conjecture and contains no concrete evidence whatsoever. You completely failed to demonstrate apostolic origins for the doctrine. This was not a doctrine in the early church; it is a complete fallacy. And to believe a pope that commands you to believe his unsubstantiated doctrine by threatening your salvation if you refuse is mind boggling to me.

For the sake of the lurker:

The main writing regarding the assumption of Mary is Transitus Beatae Mariae, which emerged in the late fifth century and was attributed to Melito of Sardis who lived in the third century. Interestingly in the late fifth century (around A.D. 494) Pope Gelasius officially condemned the writing as heretical, and the author condemned forever under the indissoluble bond of anathema. (Source, William Webster) It wasn’t until 1950 that this extraordinary claim was officially declared to be a dogma of the Roman Catholic faith. Pope Pius XII decreed Munificentissimus Deus, the official teaching of the assumption of Mary. In his decree, Pius sternly warns:

“Hence, if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic faith…It is forbidden to any man to change this, Our declaration, pronouncement, and definition or, by rash attempt, to oppose and counter it. If any man should presume to make such an attempt, let him know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.”

Pure conjecture? Tell me which Apostle mentioned the canon of the NT or even compiling a single book to be called the Bible?

 

[PJM]

Originally Posted by Brian Culliton
I do; and you have [T]raditions that you claim were handed down from the apostles. I would just like for you to acknowledge the fact that none of them can actually be traced to the apostles.

NONE is an incorrect number. Many or most would be more accurate. BUT what difference does it make? They nevertheles ARE and REMAIN TRADITIONS of the CC.

What is the revelence of Traditions started by the Apostles? A GREAT many traditions were handed on BEFORE the Apostles. One that was started by the Apostles was the Format for Catholic Mass that is largely retained today. Formats for all the sacraments in some manner bgan with the Apostles.

Love and prayers,
Pat

 

[Brian_Culliton]

Pure conjecture? Tell me which Apostle mentioned the canon of the NT or even compiling a single book to be called the Bible?

Yes, pure conjecture. And the answer to your question is, none of them. Does that mean you win?

Come on Nicea, I know the early church pretty well; I’ve studied it for over ten years. You are showing me nothing that validates any of your “Sacred Traditions.” [Big S big T] I am familiar with every reference you provided in you previous post and none of them supports your [T]raditions; they only support traditions that were delivered in writing.

Of course the apostle’s traditions existed before their writings, what you need to show is how your [T]raditions (the ones you hold equal to Scripture) that are absent from those writings were believed and practiced by the ancient church. And by ancient I mean Ante-Nicene.

Please don’t waist our time by pointing to general statements that contain the word “tradition” or “catholic.” If you are going to assert apostolic origin for doctrines that are not found in the Bible, then you are going to have to prove it by getting specific. You have had plenty of opportunity to do this for the doctrine of Mary’s assumption and so far nothing.

 

[wmscott]

SO I guess I have to ask the question that if everything ended e.g. Sacred Tradition, Apostolic Authority, or whatever other Catholic “Thing” that offends most Protestants, especially some of the Bible only Protestants. That the only thing a person needs now is a Bible and their own personal interpretation, why, please tell me why Jesus said the following:

Jn 14:16, 26 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate to be with you always, the Spirit of truth, which the world cannot accept, because it neither sees nor knows it. But you know it, because it remains with you, and will be in you. I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you. In a little while the world will no longer see me, but you will see me, because I live and you will live. On that day you will realize that I am in my Father and you are in me and I in you. Whoever has my commandments and observes them is the one who loves me. And whoever loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and reveal myself to him." Judas, not the Iscariot, said to him, “Master, (then) what happened that you will reveal yourself to us and not to the world?” Jesus answered and said to him, "Whoever loves me will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our dwelling with him. Whoever does not love me does not keep my words; yet the word you hear is not mine but that of the Father who sent me. "I have told you this while I am with you. The Advocate, the holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name–he will teach you everything and remind you of all that (I) told you.

Why was this necessary? Jesus was God; He knew that one day that there would be a Bible. Why would there be a need for the Holy Spirit to constantly look after us and guide us. Everything is already set, there is nothing new that can even in the remotest way require a teaching authority to rebuke a heresy, to correct a misinterpretations, and to proclaim a truth as it pertains to matters of faith and morals.

The answer is that as we evolve so does or understanding of God and nature. 2000 years ago human cloning and stem cell research was not even on the radar, we evolved to it. As we continue to evolve I am sure there will be new revelations that will require the guidance of the Holy Spirit for the Church, through its teaching authority, to proclaim just exactly what the truth is, and that is one truth not several differing ones.

This is exactly why this thread even exists, Pastor “Tom” says that same sex marriage is OK but human cloning is bad. Pastor “Dick” says same sex marriage is bad but embryonic stem cell research is OK. Pastor “Harry” says embryonic stem cell research is bad, same sex marriage is bad, and cares less about human cloning. Now these are just examples to illustrate disunity and far too many personal interpretations. However, each Tom, Dick, and Harry thinks they got the answer and everyone else is wrong.

As a note: there are far more good Christians who do get it and understand Gods Word and plan. It is the bad seeds that have been sowed in amongst the good that have lost perspective.

 

[PJM]

=wmscott;7206912]SO I guess I have to ask the question that if everything ended e.g. Sacred Tradition, Apostolic Authority, or whatever other Catholic “Thing” that offends most Protestants, especially some of the Bible only Protestants. That the only thing a person needs now is a Bible and their own personal interpretation, why, please tell me why Jesus said the following:

Jn 14:16, 26 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate to be with you always, the Spirit of truth, which the world cannot accept, because it neither sees nor knows it. But you know it, because it remains with you, and will be in you. I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you. In a little while the world will no longer see me, but you will see me, because I live and you will live. On that day you will realize that I am in my Father and you are in me and I in you. Whoever has my commandments and observes them is the one who loves me. And whoever loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and reveal myself to him." Judas, not the Iscariot, said to him, “Master, (then) what happened that you will reveal yourself to us and not to the world?” Jesus answered and said to him, "Whoever loves me will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our dwelling with him. Whoever does not love me does not keep my words; yet the word you hear is not mine but that of the Father who sent me. "I have told you this while I am with you. The Advocate, the holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name–he will teach you everything and remind you of all that (I) told you.

Why was this necessary? Jesus was God; He knew that one day that there would be a Bible. Why would there be a need for the Holy Spirit to constantly look after us and guide us. Everything is already set, there is nothing new that can even in the remotest way require a teaching authority to rebuke a heresy, to correct a misinterpretations, and to proclaim a truth as it pertains to matters of faith and morals.

The answer is that as we evolve so does or understanding of God and nature. 2000 years ago human cloning and stem cell research was not even on the radar, we evolved to it. As we continue to evolve I am sure there will be new revelations that will require the guidance of the Holy Spirit for the Church, through its teaching authority, to proclaim just exactly what the truth is, and that is one truth not several differing ones.

This is exactly why this thread even exists, Pastor “Tom” says that same sex marriage is OK but human cloning is bad. Pastor “Dick” says same sex marriage is bad but embryonic stem cell research is OK. Pastor “Harry” says embryonic stem cell research is bad, same sex marriage is bad, and cares less about human cloning. Now these are just examples to illustrate disunity and far too many personal interpretations. However, each Tom, Dick, and Harry thinks they got the answer and everyone else is wrong.

As a note: there are far more good Christians who do get it and understand Gods Word and plan. It is the bad seeds that have been sowed in amongst the good that have lost perspective.

EXCELLENT POST! Thanks

One might also add John 14: 14-19 [especially v. 19].

ONLY for His CC has this commitment been MADE!

 

[Nicea325]

Yes, pure conjecture. And the answer to your question is, none of them. Does that mean you win?

Come on Nicea, I know the early church pretty well; I’ve studied it for over ten years. You are showing me nothing that validates any of your “Sacred Traditions.” [Big S big T] I am familiar with every reference you provided in you previous post and none of them supports your [T]raditions; they only support traditions that were delivered in writing.

Of course the apostle’s traditions existed before their writings, what you need to show is how your [T]raditions (the ones you hold equal to Scripture) that are absent from those writings were believed and practiced by the ancient church. And by ancient I mean Ante-Nicene.

Please don’t waist our time by pointing to general statements that contain the word “tradition” or “catholic.” If you are going to assert apostolic origin for doctrines that are not found in the Bible, then you are going to have to prove it by getting specific. You have had plenty of opportunity to do this for the doctrine of Mary’s assumption and so far nothing.

Please! And nothing you say is a revelation either. Oh none of them,so why are you following a Bible compiled and canonized over 300 years later? Well I have been studying the early church for over 20 years…and your point?

Here let me apply your own words against your argument:

If you are going to assert apostolic origin for doctrines that are not found in the Bible, then you are going to have to prove it by getting specific. You have had plenty of opportunity to do this for the doctrine of Mary’s assumption and so far nothing

So Brian,if you are a believer of everything must be in the Bible,show me ONE VERSE where the Bible mentions the canon-Brian? Why are you accepting the Bible canons Brian? You have had plenty of opportunity to do this for the doctrine of the CANON of SCRIPTURE and so far NOTHING!

 

[Brian_Culliton]

Please! And nothing you say is a revelation either. Oh none of them,so why are you following a Bible compiled and canonized over 300 years later? Well I have been studying the early church for over 20 years…and your point?

Here let me apply your own words against your argument:

If you are going to assert apostolic origin for doctrines that are not found in the Bible, then you are going to have to prove it by getting specific. You have had plenty of opportunity to do this for the doctrine of Mary’s assumption and so far nothing

So Brian,if you are a believer of everything must be in the Bible,show me ONE VERSE where the Bible mentions the canon-Brian? Why are you accepting the Bible canons Brian? You have had plenty of opportunity to do this for the doctrine of the CANON of SCRIPTURE and so far NOTHING!

But that is not what I believe Nicea. I don’t believe everything MUST be in the Bible, I believe the Bible is sufficient. In fact, I believe even the twenty-two books of the canon that I can personally trace to the first / early second century through the writings of the fathers (and other historical records), is sufficient. If I didn’t think there was validity in what the early church believed, I would not ask you to validate your doctrine from history.

Is it possible that the apostles taught essential doctrine that does not appear in the canon? Yes. Did they? Not that I can see.

If you want to discuss the canon of the New Testament I’m open to it. Why do you seem to have a problem with me accepting the canon?

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nicea325
Please! And nothing you say is a revelation either. Oh none of them,so why are you following a Bible compiled and canonized over 300 years later? Well I have been studying the early church for over 20 years…and your point?

Here let me apply your own words against your argument:

If you are going to assert apostolic origin for doctrines that are not found in the Bible, then you are going to have to prove it by getting specific. You have had plenty of opportunity to do this for the doctrine of Mary’s assumption and so far nothing

So Brian,if you are a believer of everything must be in the Bible,show me ONE VERSE where the Bible mentions the canon-Brian? Why are you accepting the Bible canons Brian? You have had plenty of opportunity to do this for the doctrine of the CANON of SCRIPTURE and so far NOTHING!

But that is not what I believe Nicea. I don’t believe everything MUST be in the Bible, I believe the Bible is sufficient. In fact, I believe even the twenty-two books of the canon that I can personally trace to the first / early second century through the writings of the fathers (and other historical records), is sufficient. If I didn’t think there was validity in what the early church believed, I would not ask you to validate your doctrine from history.

Is it possible that the apostles taught essential doctrine that does not appear in the canon? Yes. Did they? Not that I can see.

If you want to discuss the canon of the New Testament I’m open to it. Why do you seem to have a problem with me accepting the canon?

Precisely Brian. I am using your own argument against you about doctrine of the canon of scripture and you dodge it. Validate the canon of scripture from HISTORY and tell me what it says Brian. You yourself stated the Apostles or Jesus never bothered to say a word about it,so why do you accept it Brian? Once again, this what you said:

*If you are going to assert apostolic origin for doctrines that are not found in the Bible, then you are going to have to prove it by getting specific. *

If you do not believe everything must be in the Bible,then I’ll ask again Brian:

Then why do you accept the canons for the Bible,if not ONE Apostle or Post-Apostolic Fathers even mention it? Where is the doctrine of the canon of scripture mentioned in the Bible?

 

[wisdomseeker]

Let me ask a question based upon the question about which church is the pillar.
Lets go to what the Bible teaches about various churches.

We agree that the last book of the Bible has John writing to seven churches in Asia Rev 1:4

John writes this to the church at Ephesus

What about Thyataria

So were these churches the pillar and ground of truth as well? How did people in these particular congregations determine if they were in a church teaching error?

It is called the CC spreading throughout the world. you certainly dont think that Church was not supposed to be in different places, do you? or do you think that the Church should be in one place only and people from all over the world had to travel to go to Mass there? why is so hard for you people to get this? why is so hard for you people to understand that the Church must be built everywhere? so the people can learn about the Catholic Faith. the Church although in different place, she still the same Church. when I entered into my parish, I am not entered just in the one building the parish, I am going into the One Holy Catholic Church. it is not so with protestants community. due to the mindset of protestantism, it is hard for you guys to see that there is only One Church and not many. the Church in Brasil, the Church in america, the Church in russian, the Church in Rome. they are but One Church and not many.