why do you need separate books for all of these? the bible is the one inspired by god, so why would i believe in the other laws written and chosen by men?The Bible is not the code of canon law, nor is it the Catechism. These are three different books with three different functions.
The Bible tells us where we came from; the Catechism tells us what we are to believe; and the code of canon law tells us how we must behave.
so how can we tell that the ones who interpreted the bible weren’t mistaken? they are humans, and as you’ve said fallible.However, being fallible humans, we as individuals can misinterpret scripture. That is the reason that God gave us the Holy Spirit.
All three of them come from the Church, which comes from God.why do you need separate books for all of these? the bible is the one inspired by god, so why would i believe in the other laws written and chosen by men?
By which ones come from the Church.So how can we tell that the ones who interpreted the bible weren’t mistaken? they are humans, and as you’ve said fallible.
so if all of them came from god, tell me why do we need 3 separate books for that? why not the bible alone? because the bible cannot answer everything? and because it contradicts itself?All three of them come from the Church, which comes from God.
By which ones come from the Church.
No, because the Bible was never meant to answer everything, nor does it claim to do so. Jesus founded the Church for that purpose.so if all of them came from god, tell me why do we need 3 separate books for that? why not the bible alone? because the bible cannot answer everything? and because it contradicts itself?
oh really then? there were a lot of things in the NT that refutes the verses in the OT.The Bible does not contradict itself.
But also the Bible is not the ONLY ‘tool’ of Christianity. Jesus did not say, “You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my bible, King James of course and with leather bindings. . .” As I told you before, for the first 350 years of Christianity there was no Bible as we know it, assembled as Old Testament and New Testament. Further, for the next 1000 and more years after there WAS a Bible, most people COULD NOT READ anyway. It surely would be shortsighted to present as the ONLY tool and teaching guide something that MOST PEOPLE would not be able to utilize practically for 1500 years!!!
you are not seein my point man. i was sayin that, if the bible is god’s word and inspired by him, it should suffice for us to believe in his teachings and abide his laws.The CHURCH is the bride of Christ, and the CHURCH not only provided us, through the Holy Spirit, with the WRITTEN WORD of God but with the LIVING WORD of God, Christ Jesus, as founder, as bridegroom, and as the LIVING BREAD AND WINE whose once-for-all sacrifice we are present at, transcending space and time, in every Mass throughout all time.
This question is more easily answered if you give examples.oh really then? there were a lot of things in the NT that refutes the verses in the OT.
We do suffice in His teachings and abide by His Laws. But He doesn’t tell us that the Bible would be the only source of His Truth and contain All of His Teachings. If it did, there would be no need for any other teachers, but it doesn’t.you are not seein my point man. i was sayin that, if the bible is god’s word and inspired by him, it should suffice for us to believe in his teachings and abide his laws.
i would love to and since we’re already getting off topic i’ll find the thread for that.This question is more easily answered if you give examples.
We do suffice in His teachings and abide by His Laws. But He doesn’t tell us that the Bible would be the only source of His Truth and contain All of His Teachings. If it did, there would be no need for any other teachers, but it doesn’t.
There is nothing anywhere that says the Bible is the* sum total* of the Word of God. The rest of it is in the Church. The Bible even tells you that - it says, “If there is anything confusing, listen to the Church, which is the pillar and the bulwark of Truth.”i was sayin that, if the bible is god’s word and inspired by him, it should suffice for us to believe in his teachings and abide his laws.
i guess you and tantum ergo also don’t agree.There is nothing anywhere that says the Bible is the* sum total* of the Word of God. The rest of it is in the Church. The Bible even tells you that - it says, “If there is anything confusing, listen to the Church, which is the pillar and the bulwark of Truth.”
Scripture isn’t the “supposed” word of God, it IS the word of God.
Stillwater,i guess you and tantum ergo also don’t agree.
play of words huh? when you say it is NOT in entirety the word of god then you cannot say it IS the word of god. rather PARTIALLY the word of god.Stillwater,
Jmcrae and Tantum Ergo do not contradict each other.
Jmcrae claims that the bible is the word of God, just as Tantum Ergo does. But it’s certainly not the entirety of all that God has said. The Apostle John himself wrote that there are not enough books in all the world that could contain all that Jesus said and taught.
You are very misinformed. None of the Apostolic Churches (those who can trace their pastors back to Christ and the Apostles) has ever had priestesses. If you have verifiable and reliable evidence to the contrary, please post the citations here so that we can be enlightened.The Catholic church does not let women become Priests… Why is that?
Wasn’t Mary Magdalene a great preacher and teacher? Why has that all of a sudden been stopped?
Are these the words of Stillwater? Or are these ALL the words of Stillwater??? I don’t see how my point was a play on words. The Bible is the Inspired Word of God, but it’s not ALL that God has said. Am I missing your point, here?play of words huh? when you say it is NOT in entirety the word of god then you cannot say it IS the word of god. rather PARTIALLY the word of god.
goin back to the topic, i can say there may be valid reasons why women cannot be priests. but then we cannot deny the fact how women were looked down durin the time of jesus and how they were mistreated. i think it’s one of the factors why women are not chosen to be priests.
The pope says so, because Jesus already established that fact. Women were already priestesses in other religions, so there was no exceptional taboo among early Christians that prevented women from being priestesses. And yet, Jesus still did not call any to become priests. The apostles did not ordain any. The pope had no choice but to agree with this procedure.and please don’t say that “because the pope says so” is a valid argument.
Luckily, that’s not the case.that’s ignorance.
yes you are indeed missing the pointAre these the words of Stillwater? Or are these ALL the words of Stillwater??? I don’t see how my point was a play on words. The Bible is the Inspired Word of God, but it’s not ALL that God has said. Am I missing your point, here?
The pope says so, because Jesus already established that fact. Women were already priestesses in other religions, so there was no exceptional taboo among early Christians that prevented women from being priestesses. And yet, Jesus still did not call any to become priests. The apostles did not ordain any. The pope had no choice but to agree with this procedure.
well, let’s give two sides of the story then…Luckily, that’s not the case.
This would be a good opportunity to clear up my confusion…yes you are indeed missing the point.
Ignoring the fact that the author of this document may be a little biased (www.womenpriests.org)), I think the disciplines listed on this site would need to go back to maybe the 1st century to accurately determine why Catholics don’t ordain women as priests. I’m not sure if Jesus, and then the Apostles, were under the authority of a 12th or 13th century document…well, let’s give two sides of the story then… Church Law and ‘Women Priests’
i already said my point earlier no need to repeat.This would be a good opportunity to clear up my confusion…
It’s certainly not a play of words.play of words huh? when you say it is NOT in entirety the word of god then you cannot say it IS the word of god. rather PARTIALLY the word of god.
exactly my point!If you are proceeding from the notion that parts of the Bible aren’t true, then the Bible would in fact be entirely untrue. It either is the Word of God, or it isn’t. It can’t be 50% legitimate.
So, if your position is that the Bible is not Divine in source, your position makes perfect sense, but only under that condition.
In which case, by your thesis, the Bible cannot be the Word of God.i already said my point earlier no need to repeat.
Ignoring the fact that the author of this document may be a little biased (www.womenpriests.org)), I think the disciplines listed on this site would need to go back to maybe the 1st century to accurately determine why Catholics don’t ordain women as priests. I’m not sure if Jesus, and then the Apostles, were under the authority of a 12th or 13th century document…
of course it will look biased because they are womenpriests. still we cannot ignore the fact that some parts of the bible was prejudiced…and we didn’t call it biased.