R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Post 53.
Why don't you think it's not obvious to Protestants that their bible is not the bible that contains the fullness of the inspired written Word of God?
- Status
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Who told you that?
But hey, there’s nothing wrong with Tradition and the teaching of the Magisterium of the Church…in fact, it’s found in the Bible itself.
Don’t believe me? Okay…pay attention…
2 Timothy 3:14-17 – Tradition + Scripture + Magisterium
2 Timothy 3:14-17
14But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of (Timothy had learned the Gospel and become convinced that it was true by Paul’s ORAL preaching and teaching. This oral preaching and teaching is known to Catholics as Sacred Tradition.), because you know those from whom you learned it (Timothy had learned the gospel from Paul, an Apostle (and Bishop) of the Church, and possibly from other Church leaders whom Timothy had heard preaching and teaching. The teaching authority of the Church is known to Catholics as the Magisterium.) , 15and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures (Timothy would have known only the Old Testament scriptures from his infancy since the New Testament had not been written or completed at the time Paul’s letter to Timothy was composed. However, the New Testament is recognized as part of the Bible, the written Word of God. This is known to Catholics as Sacred Scripture.), which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. (Only after commending the Tradition “handed on” from the Magisterium does Paul go on to discuss the nature of Sacred Scripture in the following verses.)16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
Now, let me ask you DrBible, what is the pillar and foundation of truth for the Believer?
The Bible, right?
Wrong!
1 Timothy 3:15
if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.
The Church – not a book – is the pillar and foundation of the truth.
So, aren’t we Catholics right in listening carefully to what the Church teaches?
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
For the sake of our dear lurkers out there
, since dribble will not provide any exegesis for his Scripture citations, nor any evidence whatsoever for any of his claims, I will say this to you: With regard to appealing to Jewish canons after Christ, it begs the question. After Christ, such authority was granted to the apostolic era. If Jesus would have passed on His authority to Pharisees, perhaps drbible would have a point.Let’s also not forget that the Septuagint from which Jesus Christ often quoted, as the early Church teaches, contained the Deuterocanon.
Even more damning to his position on denying the Deuterocanon based on Hebrew origin, were the Dead Sea Scrolls with Hebrew texts of Sirach, Judith, and 1 Maccabees.
Not to mention the plethora of Deuterocanonical references in the NT, as Randy noted.
A
Atemi
Guest
Not all Christians have “always” used the LXX…and Trent did not include all of the books in the LXX in their canon anyway, so that point is moot.
They did not do without it! They taught it!
LOL.
The same cannot be said of the contents of Trent, that is for sure.
…
A
Atemi
Guest
Huh?
Since when is the RC Magisterium the Body of Christ itself?
What you are basically saying above is:
“Isn’t the Church right in listening carefully to what the Church teaches?”
That makes no sense whatsoever.
There is only one Body of Christ, the Church, and it is definitely not just the RC Magisterium.
Do you propose multiple Bodies of Christ?
…
G
GreenLantern
Guest
The Magisterium is part of the Church and the Church is the metaphorical body of Christ.
And Sola Scriptura makes much more sense in saying that one should only listen to the Bible when the Bible never makes that claim?
You’re right, the Catholic Magisterium is just a part of the Body of Christ and it is not limited to the Latin Rite of the West.
A
Atemi
Guest
Sorry, but the poster before you called the RC Magisterium “the Church”:
“aren’t we Catholics right in listening carefully to what the Church teaches?”
I find this disturbing pattern common among Catholics.
If we cannot even properly identify who “the Church” is, then all else suffers loss.
…
G
GreenLantern
Guest
The Catholic Magisterium is indeed part of the Church but it is not the whole Church.
There is no difficulty in identifying the Church.
A
Atemi
Guest
If there is no difficulty, how is it that so many Catholics call the RC Magisterium the Body of Christ?
That is confusion defined, IMO.
…
po18guy
Well-known member
Once there was a separation from the Catholic church, the Protestants slowly lost the Eucharist. Our Lord in the Eucharist was the only thing which held the early Lutheran church together. The Eucharist faded as validly ordained priests died off. Once Christ was no longer present within the Lutheran church, the divisions began. They have not stopped, and in fact may be accelerating.
Note how the Eastern Orthodox church, the first to suffer schism, has kept the Seven Sacraments, kept the validly ordained Holy Orders, kept a valid Eucharist. And their beliefs are essentially identical to the Catholic. Reunification is progressing slowly, but is progressing.
Since Christ is The Word made Flesh, and does no longer exist Eucharistically in the Lutheran church, they have only scripture. The bible, without authoritative teaching behind it, has essentially become meaningless. Christian doctrine has ever since mutated like cancer.
Christ’s peace.
J
JED8643
Guest
Borrring… :yawn:
This is like listening to my KJOist Father-in-law. I guess they all use the same playbook.(maybe Chick tract) None of this is original and is the main reason I converted to the CC from Protestant fundamentalism. Five minutes with an encyclopedia and these KJOnly arguments fade fast.
I often wonder why these great Anglican scholars who translated the KJV from the “greatest manuscripts available” never let the Holy Spirit guide them when forming their doctrine?? I mean they belonged to the Church of England right? Their church taught infant baptism, necessity of baptism for salvation, loss of salvation from mortal sin, communion of saints, real presence in communion ect. ect.
Not to mention cross referencing verses (in the original 1611 version) from the NT to the duetro-canonical books, what, about ten times??
All that work, all those hours in study, and some want us to believe those KJ translators weren’t “bible believing” Christians after all.
M
mozart-250
Guest
Really. Hmm.
Where does it say that in the Bible.
Hmm. Unless it does that in 1 Peter chapter 6 or some other part of the Bible, I can confidently assert that belief is not in the Bible…
So, the irony of this is inescapable.
You, of course will point your finger at the Catholics concerning all their beliefs that you perceive as unBiblical. Meanwhile at the same time, you hold a belief that is most definitely unBiblical.
I seem to recall Jesus somewhere addressing those that were removing the speck from their brothers eye but did not see the log in their own eyes. I think he used the word “hypocrites” in this passage.
If the shoe fits, wear it.
BTW, I am not even Catholic. However, I will go after stupidity, arrogance, and hypocrisy no matter where the source is…(in fact particularly if it comes from my source. I don’t like being made to look bad by association if you know what it means).
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
You mean like you Protestants do with your thousands of distinct denominations teaching conflicting and contradictory doctrines? Hardly my position at all.
Jesus established ONE Church (one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one shepherd, one flock, etc.). This Church has a leadership structure also established by God beginning with Peter (cf. Mt 16, Jn 21) and is protected by God Himself through the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals.
Since the Church, and not a book, is the pillar and foundation of the truth, aren’t we Catholics right in listening to what the Church infallibly teaches?
T
Teflon93
Guest
I have been saved, am being saved, and, I pray, will be saved.
I notice you had no response to John 6. Why?
C
clmowry
Guest
How is it that you believe the King James version of the bible has avoided use of “corrupt vaticanus manuscripts”?
Where did the copies of the ancient texts not written by the hands of a Catholic come from?
Chuck
Where did the copies of the ancient texts not written by the hands of a Catholic come from?
Chuck
C
clmowry
Guest
Your “facts” being based on a belief that the Jews get to define the Old Testament Cannon, right?
So if they decided today that only the Pentateuch is scripture then you would be oliged to change your cannon.
Correct?
So if they decided today that only the Pentateuch is scripture then you would be oliged to change your cannon.
Correct?
Amen.
Why don’t you come to downtown Sydney, Australia and settle the issue of the OT canon like a real man
The thread was about the ‘missing books’ from the ‘protestant’ Bible.
I have given you historical facts and Biblical facts that confirm the apocrypha is not part of the OT canon.
Address the issue!
C
Church_Militant
Guest
If that is the basis for your argument then you must not feel that your case is convincing enough.
Are you trying to assert that they did so for the New Testament canon? Naturally, that would be ludicrous.
Here I suppose you will try to tell me that the Dead Sea Scrolls do not contain Hebrew copies of the Deuterocanon?
I would, but it’s a specious argument because what the KJB contains is not relevant to the issue of of the OT canon. You may assert that you use a 1611 KJV but I have used one and what most modern n-Cs have today is not a 1611 edition. The 1611 contained the Deuterocanon until the mid 1800s when some Bible society decided to remove them, apparently for the sake of reducing production costs. My problem with that is that they had no authority to abridge the Word of God in that way, yet many modern n-Cs use that abridged canon, :bible1:
I look forward to your presentation of it. Then we’ll see if it supports your interpretation. I never deny what Our Lord says. I do however generally take issue with many of the myriad n-C interpretations of whatever passages may be presented. By all means enlighten me though…
You may be, that is not my place to judge, and I entrust such things to Our lord where they rightly belong. There is, of course, still time for you to repent.
There is apparently hope for you. This is a fine expression of Catholic belief.
Pax Domini sit semper vobisum.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
-you will be amazed by the truths you will learn.
Precisely the main reason that I reject Protestant theology and am a Catholic. You’re not talking to some biblically ignorant pew warmer here.But of course, if this particular method was demonstative of the infallible consistency of the Holy Spirit’s teaching work, then there would be a unity of consistency in interpretation of all believers asserting this as their guide. The fact that there is such a wide diversity of errors espoused by the vast majority of n-Cs does not bear witness to that though.
The fact that the interpretations of the majority of modern post Reformation step children not only contradict the Bible as well as the verifiable historic writings of the ECF who received their discipling directly from the apostles (Sts. Polycarp and Ignatius of Antioch for example…) is convincing evidence that it is not the Catholic Church that is in error, but those n-Cs. :tsktsk:
F
Filius99993
Guest
Ultimately, they just don’t want to follow the Church because they want to have their own interpretation of the Bible, and thus they want to make up their own rules, too. So to justify that, they claim that Catholics made up all of our rules and books and the like. You can always find people who take literal interpretations of Revelation who don’t have a clue what Maccabees is.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
**I will give you a definition of a TRUE Bible believing Christian:
“A born-again, blood washed, fire and brimstone preaching Christian who believes that the King James Bible is the inspired and infallible word of God and is the FINAL AUTHORITY on ALL matters of FAITH and PRACTICE”
With regards to John 6 and Jas 2 you ain’t seen nothing yet friend. I can blow you out of the water (Dead Sea or Red Sea) simply using my King James Bible without resorting to any Pastor, Reformer, denomination or Church.**
You are the one who would have to resort to the fallible opinions and private interpretations of popes, councils, church ‘father’s’ and Karl Keating et al to show me anything that you believe.
Tell me then, which of the apostles spoke, read, and wrote King James era English? (Facetious remark of course, but the fact is that the OT that the Lord Himself and the apostles were familar with was the Greek Septuagint text more than any Hebrew version.
An excellent example of this is the copiest error that the KJV translators made in the text of the Lord’s Prayer in the Gospel of Matthew verse 6:13 which added the doxology from the Didache to the end of it when it isn’t in the oldest and best Greek manuscripts.
The other is the long list of times where Our Lord and the apostles quote the Septuagint as recorded in the New Testament.
The fact is that over 90% of the OT quotes in the NT are verifiably from the Septuagint and not the Hebrew text.
- Status