Who says one organization today is "The True Church"

[Palaeologos]

I know the Bible is inspired because of prophecies fulfilled- really the only way to know it might be from GOD. The other proof is the testamonies of eyewitnesses to historical events.

By that criterion, Xenophon’s Persian Wars is also inspired, because it’s also based on eyewitness testimony.

Well since we all know what GOD says in HIS Word the need for proof lies with the Catholics.

You have yet to show that Scripture disproves any Catholic teaching. All you can offer is that this or that thing isn’t in the Bible. That’s known as an argument from silence–a very weak argumentative position.

What’s secret about it ? I have been asking this over and over and have not received an answer.

This makes no sense. You’re the one who referred to “secret traditions”; what did you mean by that? None of the traditions of the Catholic Church are secret. They are open for investigation by anyone who’s interested. The idea of a “secret tradition” is Gnostic, not Catholic. That’s the sort of thing Freemasons get up to.

**What tradition about Jesus do I not have that only the Catholic Church has?

What secrets does the Catholic Church have that are needed for my salvation and GOD didn’t put them in HIS Word, the only cocrete thing we can put our hands on in the matter?**

Where do you get that the Catholic Church has some secret cache of information? The Gospels came from verbal tradition. None of them were written before the late 1st century (at the most conservative estimate). Do you think the Church has always been ignorant of the contents of Scripture? What facts do you have to support such a contention?

 

[schaick]

By that criterion, Xenophon’s Persian Wars is also inspired, because it’s also based on eyewitness testimony.

Are there eyewitnesses to the miracles of Jesus, his healings, resurrection, etc.?

You have yet to show that Scripture disproves any Catholic teaching. All you can offer is that this or that thing isn’t in the Bible. That’s known as an argument from silence–a very weak argumentative position.

Here are some things that we don’t know for sure from the Bible-
Mary’s Assumption, Mary’s perpetual virginity,

Are these needed for our salvation?

Papal infallibility I see no where.

This is not my arguement but Catholics-

To be a Catholic you have to believe it.

To be saved you have to be in the Catholic Church.

This makes no sense. You’re the one who referred to “secret traditions”; what did you mean by that? None of the traditions of the Catholic Church are secret. They are open for investigation by anyone who’s interested. The idea of a “secret tradition” is Gnostic, not Catholic. That’s the sort of thing Freemasons get up to.

Because I keep getting told I don’t have it!! LOL!! Whatever it is!

I know and that is why I am trying to figure out what Catholics have that is saving them and not me.

My church is so lacking and Luther was such a heretic!?!

Where do you get that the Catholic Church has some secret cache of information? The Gospels came from verbal tradition. None of them were written before the late 1st century (at the most conservative estimate). Do you think the Church has always been ignorant of the contents of Scripture? What facts do you have to support such a contention?

Yes I agree first it was verbal tradtion, but I’ll bet as soon as they could they were putting things in writting. Especially when you consider the long history of Scripture in Judiasm.

I believe the dates are earlier, but our salvation does not depend on it-so it is cool.

Now if that was a statment from the Pope we would have to believe it or no communion for you!

LOL! I am thinking the soup nazis here on Seinfield- No soup for you!

 

[schaick]

He could not have been quoting Luke as Scripture, because the book of Luke was not declared to be Scripture until more than 300 years later. He could have quoted it as “this book I’m reading,” or “something written by one of my friends,” but none of the New Testament became “enscripturated” (to borrow a term from the Fundamentalists) until 405 AD.

**So who was he quoting? **

1 Timothy 5:18For the Scripture says, “Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain,”[a] and “The worker deserves his wages.”**

Footnotes:
1 Timothy 5:18 Deut. 25:4
1 Timothy 5:18 Luke 10:7

Why did it take the Catholic Curch so long to recognize the canon when there were so many heretic cults forming?

Papias, Irenaeus, Pantaenus, Origen

And why was it so late that the Catholic Church recognize the Gospel that the early Church fathers were all referencing?**

 

[jmcrae]

**So who was he quoting? **

1 Timothy 5:18For the Scripture says, “Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain,”[a] and “The worker deserves his wages.”**

Footnotes:
1 Timothy 5:18 Deut. 25:4
1 Timothy 5:18 Luke 10:7 **

“The worker deserves his wages” is also found in the Old Testament, as well, in Leviticus 19:13, and in Malachi 3:5. It’s not likely that St. Paul was quoting from the Gospel of Luke, because I don’t think Luke had yet converted to Christianity, at the time that he was writing that. He didn’t meet Luke until he went to Antioch, which I think was later than that (I could be wrong, but I’m reasonably sure of that).

Why did it take the Catholic Curch so long to recognize the canon when there were so many heretic cults forming?