Why follow a Church not founded by Christ and in Christ?

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

HannahLisa,

Thank you for being open to discourse and that the exchange of Ideas,as well as seeking and learning. So many come her and ask a Question then want to debate your answer. Others don’t give answers but debate the question. You could spend a life time (and may) in study of both Scripture and Tradition of the Church and not only not cover all but not fully understand what you do cover. Also remember that there are Traditions and there are traditions. ( note capital and small t) some times its gets difficult to tell which is which. I am not the one to explain the difference, and often think I get them confused.

I kind of like to think of things in this manner: when you start a job your given a job description and a employee handbook with the mission statement and values and benefits listed out. As you start doing the Job you find out that there is more to is than what was given to you on that hand book or job description. Its the same with Scripture and Tradition.

Have fun enjoy school. I have read it in this forum on a members signature where there is a Bishop there is the Church. to that I add the words of Christ: Were two or more are gather in my Name there I am also. To me the 2 go together. But hey I just a dumb shmuck from Indiana.

Peace in the Lord

Scott

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

HannahLisa,

I just had another taught and had to write before it disappeared.

Don’t Let not knowing the Traditions ( dogma, doctrines, ect… ) of the Church. Stand in your way. The Apostles lived with Christ daily for 3 years and still di not understand everything he was telling them.

Peace in the Lord

Scott

 

[VWcrazy]

Centuries of Christianity, in which the Bible was one of the ultimate authorities or the ultimate authority. Does the fact that I am a Protestant somehow invalidate this? Or is it the fact that the Church “created” the Bible? I think even the Church bows to Scripture, or at the very least I have yet to see a teaching which is in direct opposition to Scripture.

Hannah,

This still does not show any Scripture quoting stating that “the Bible is the ultimate authority”. Also, let’s face it - this really isn’t too honest. For the first 4 centuries of Christianity, there was no Bible. And then for around the next 12 centuries, it was not believed by anyone, either.

So, again. Where are you coming up with this idea that the Bible is the ultimate authority?

 

[Publisher]

You forgot to add this, publisher:

“We also interpret early Church history to fit our personal interpretation of what a “Christian” is, since there is no one authority but Jesus and forget the part about “Follow me” and to teach as you have been taught, oh and while we’re at it, don’t mistake us for Mormons or Moslems who KNOW what Allah/Joseph Smith/this planet’s resident Deity demands of us, even though a few of these groups may use the same “I’m okay, you’re okay, hey ho go with the flow type of belief,” we want you Catholics not to think OUR personal interpretation is the same as ***THEIR ***personal interpretations. Thank you and God bless.”
Robert

No, I forgot to add nothing…the above is a reflection of what you would say…but that is foreign to me…but thanks for trying to clarify my statement.

 

[2ndGen]

2ndGen,

So do you need divine inspiration to translate the Bible?
.

For me to believe in a bible translation, “yes”, it must be produced by the same Church that God chose to reveal it’s canon to.

Why go anywhere else and take chances when I can get the authentic translation from those God chose to create The Bible in the first place?

To go outside of The Church for a biblical translation is taking an unneccessary step. It’s like one saying that they have no faith in The Church God chose to reveal His Word to.

I have 100% faith that God chose the right Church the first time and His choice needed no correction by men.

 

[2ndGen]

I wasn’t aware that Satanists had Bibles…

.

Were you aware that the same people who produce The Satanic Bible and The Satanic Ritual Hanbook, also are the publishers of The New International Version (NIV) of the bible?

I’ve had non-Catholic Christians tell me that they “still” trust the NIV as the inspired word of God despite it’s source (completely ignoring the judging the tree by it’s fruit parable of Jesus).

So Mary is unworthy of veneration,
but Satanic Bible publishers can be trusted with God’s Word?

 

[jblake]

1 and 2 Esdras are in the Catholic Bible, but they are called Esra and Nehemiah in Protestant versions.

If you want to call 1 Esdras and 2 Esdras, Ezra and Nehemiah, then the question is why is 3 Esdras and 4 Esdras omitted.

Not sure what PrMan

Prayer of Manassas

Eastern Catholics do have those books in their canon that the Orthodox have.

Orthodox Christianity, but not Catholic Christianity.
Episcopalians, but not Catholics.

But my point is that if you are going to claim that Protestants removed books, you have first to justify why Catholics removed books from the Bible.

xan

jonathon

 

[Harpazo]

If you want to call 1 Esdras and 2 Esdras, Ezra and Nehemiah, then the question is why is 3 Esdras and 4 Esdras omitted.

Prayer of Manassas

Orthodox Christianity, but not Catholic Christianity.
Episcopalians, but not Catholics.

But my point is that if you are going to claim that Protestants removed books, you have first to justify why Catholics removed books from the Bible.

xan

jonathon

If I recall correctly, those books were not of the original canon. There were 73 that were deemed canonical at the Councils of Hippo and Carthage.

As for Episcopalians and Anglicans, they’re not required to accept them as canonical. It’s generally up to each Anglican to decided, at least, that’s what I’ve noticed.

Pace e Bene
Andrew

 

[2ndGen]

But my point is that if you are going to claim that Protestants removed books, you have first to justify why Catholics removed books from the Bible.

May I Jonathon?

Because God said so.

 

[HannahLisa]

Hannah,

This still does not show any Scripture quoting stating that “the Bible is the ultimate authority”. Also, let’s face it - this really isn’t too honest. For the first 4 centuries of Christianity, there was no Bible. And then for around the next 12 centuries, it was not believed by anyone, either.

So, again. Where are you coming up with this idea that the Bible is the ultimate authority?

I don’t see how Scripture stating that the Bible is the ultimate authority would help. I’ve already explained that line of reasoning. Also, the Bible was believed by people (not all, of course, but some, and I think all Christians) for the next 12 centuries. The OT was around before Christianity.

Probably, I got the idea from my upbringing. What do you think the Bible is? Where does it “rank”?

 

[HannahLisa]

For me to believe in a bible translation, “yes”, it must be produced by the same Church that God chose to reveal it’s canon to.

Why go anywhere else and take chances when I can get the authentic translation from those God chose to create The Bible in the first place?

To go outside of The Church for a biblical translation is taking an unneccessary step. It’s like one saying that they have no faith in The Church God chose to reveal His Word to.

I have 100% faith that God chose the right Church the first time and His choice needed no correction by men.

How do you know for sure it’s an authentic translation? Besides the whole “guided by the Holy Spirit” thing. I understand your viewpoint, though; if I was Catholic, I would probably just use Catholic Bible translations for similar reasons.

One could argue that the Church has been corrupted, much like the world was. Not arguing that, just saying.

That is very interesting about the Satanist Bible. Do you have any documentation of that? I would be very interested in seeing it. (Also, I don’t actually use the NIV translation. I use the NLT for myself, and I’m PRETTY sure they don’t publish any Satanic Bibles…)

I don’t think Protestants really venerate anyone the way Catholics venerate Mary – from what I’ve seen, anyway. I understand the reasons Catholics do venerate Mary, but even so sometimes it seems to me too excessive. That’s me though Anyway, that’s a tangent. I do see your point there. I highly doubt most NIV users know that about the publisher.

Scott – thank you for that post I hope I keep learning my entire life!!

 

[2ndGen]

How do you know for sure it’s an authentic translation? Besides the whole “guided by the Holy Spirit” thing. I understand your viewpoint, though; if I was Catholic, I would probably just use Catholic Bible translations for similar reasons.

 

[VWcrazy]

I don’t see how Scripture stating that the Bible is the ultimate authority would help. I’ve already explained that line of reasoning. Also, the Bible was believed by people (not all, of course, but some, and I think all Christians) for the next 12 centuries. The OT was around before Christianity.

Probably, I got the idea from my upbringing. What do you think the Bible is? Where does it “rank”?

I find this very troubling, Hannah.

If you really want to have the Bible as the “ultimate authority”, you must be able to show us the exact Scripture which says so; otherwise, you are not being Biblical.

You say the Bible was believed for the next 12-centuries, but you failed to point out that those people did not believe it was the “ultimate authority”.

Do you believe the Bible is the pillar of truth?

 

[jblake]

2ndGen;:

Because God said so.

The Ethiopiac Canon of Eighty One (Broader Canon) is the only Christian Canon which would not make that claim. The sole reason for not doing so, is that there is an issue abotu whether or not that canon is closed.

Every other Christian Canon uses that justification.
The Jewish, Samaritan, and Muslim Canons also use that justification.

xan

jonathon

 

[HannahLisa]

I find this very troubling, Hannah.

If you really want to have the Bible as the “ultimate authority”, you must be able to show us the exact Scripture which says so; otherwise, you are not being Biblical.

You say the Bible was believed for the next 12-centuries, but you failed to point out that those people did not believe it was the “ultimate authority”.

Do you believe the Bible is the pillar of truth?

In the last 5 centuries, there have been people who believed it was the “ultimate authority”. And again, the fact that no Church Tradition or doctrine that I know of directly contradicts it – rather, probably bases the doctrine partially on the interpretation of it – seems to me to say that it IS definitely A pillar of truth, if not THE pillar of truth.

Again: What is your view on the Bible?

 

[Harpazo]

In the last 5 centuries, there have been people who believed it was the “ultimate authority”. And again, the fact that no Church Tradition or doctrine that I know of directly contradicts it – rather, probably bases the doctrine partially on the interpretation of it – seems to me to say that it IS definitely A pillar of truth, if not THE pillar of truth.

Again: What is your view on the Bible?

What has come out of this doctrine? Only division. Division that will continue until Protestants start really listening to the Holy Spirit, and not their own views. It takes a lot of humility to do that.

If Sola Scriptura is a valid doctrine, why did it appear so late in the game? I guess all the Natives in various countries were sent right to Hell because they never heard the Gospel. Or the Christians that couldn’t read from AD 33 to 1517 are damned as well?

Nothing good has come from this doctrine, and I don’t think anything ever will. It’s dangerous and only leads people astray.

Pace e Bene
Andrew

 

[HannahLisa]

That would be impossible to prove since The Church has never been proven to be fallible on matters of doctrine. Never. Not once in the 2,000 year history. No brag…just fact.

Plus, Jesus told Peter that The Church he’d start would never be infiltrated by Satan for where The Holy Spirit dwells, Satan cannot. Matthew 16.

Men are falllible, but The Church is not…

Well, how much love is “too” much? If Jesus’ wish was that we’d love each other as He loved us, then there really is no limit to how much we should love her.

Isn’t Christ about the multiplication of love, not the dimunation of love?

When we love the right person, then isn’t more better?

I’m not saying this sarcastically, but that’s the Protestant’s loss in their not sharing their Christian love with Mary. They are missing out on so much. For them, Jesus is enough. For Catholics, we want Jesus and everything that comes with Him. Too much Jesus is never enough for us.

I am not arguing that the Church was necessarily fallible on matters of doctrine. I do see the distinction between the two. However, when there are a large amount of corrupt individuals who hold places in the Church, I have trouble seeing how it could not be considered “corrupted”…Not in matters of doctrine, simply in the behaviour of its priests. If that makes sense…

That site is interesting, but does not state that the NIV is published by the same people who publish the Sanatic Bible. Also, it compares the NIV to the KJB, which I believe you don’t view as an accurate translation anyway… You can give me Catholic sources, too!

Love is too much when we start idolizing other people and giving them the love and respect which should be reserved for God alone. It’s a fine line and it’s hard to tell where it is. If you get all caught up in loving someone (here on earth or in heaven) to the exclusion or lessening of time with God, then there is definitely a problem!

I do not see how having the same respect for Mary that the Catholics do somehow brings us closer to Jesus – probably because I’m not Catholic!

 

[HannahLisa]

What has come out of this doctrine? Only division. Division that will continue until Protestants start really listening to the Holy Spirit, and not their own views. It takes a lot of humility to do that.

If Sola Scriptura is a valid doctrine, why did it appear so late in the game? I guess all the Natives in various countries were sent right to Hell because they never heard the Gospel. Or the Christians that couldn’t read from AD 33 to 1517 are damned as well?

Nothing good has come from this doctrine, and I don’t think anything ever will. It’s dangerous and only leads people astray.

I think we may not be fully understanding each other…I don’t see why anyone would automatically be damned just because they had to hear God’s Word instead of reading it themselves. You don’t need the Bible to have faith; you only need to know about some of the stories in it. I’m sure God in His Goodness has a plan for those who never even heard that.

What I am trying to say is that the Catholic Church will not teach something contrary to the complete Bible. People interpret the Bible in different ways, which is where the division comes in. Some interpret the Bible wrongly, whether purposefully or not I do not know. I can see the validity of Tradition, etc. but none of it is going to contradict the Bible. I explain that by saying the Bible is the ultimate authority when it does mention things specifically. Perhaps my understanding is flawed. But how can I change it without being presented with alternatives?

 

[c659smith]

Hannah,

Let me start by asking and answering a question,

There were only 4 humans born on this earth without sin who were they?

There were only two Humans however that died without sin. Who were they.

Two were Adam and Eve who were made without sin but died in sin, there was one commandment by God at that time and that was not to eat from the tree of knowledge to which they did.

In the New Covenant two were born without Sin.

Jesus Christ and Mary whom the Angel said to Mary was full of Grace meaning without sin.

Through Jesus’s Death and ressurection He conquered the Sin of Adam and Eve (man) and repaired the rift between God and Man.
In doing this he conquered what the penalty was because of Adam and Eve which was death and gave us back the opportubity of Eternal Life with God.

One more question.

Would Jesus break one of his faher’s commandments?

Honor thy Faather and Mother?

Of course not and as such would not subject his mother (Mary) to be dishonored through or by sin.

Eliah in the Bible states he was assumed into heaven in a chariot. Well would Jesus be honoring his Mother if he allowed her body to decay in the earth while allowing another man not to be?

At the Cross just before Jesus died he said to the Apostle at the bottom of the cross and his Mother.

This is your mother and woman this is your son

Thus giving Mary to us as our Blessed Mother our new Eve.

 

[HannahLisa]

c659smith,

I think you may have misunderstood me. I was not trying to argue against Mary’s sinlessness or her Assumption (I believe that is the right term).

I would say that Jesus allows free will and therefore it would be possible for people to honor His Mother in a way that is not right.