Why Isn't Everyone Catholic?

[Arandur]

I would certainly hope that the Church of the first, third and fifth centuries believed in the Bible, but perhaps they didn’t; perhaps you’re correct.

What evidence do you offer that the Church of the first, third and fifth centuries didn’t believe in the Bible, wisdomseeker?

Without reading Wisdomseeker’s mind, it’s pretty easy to see the point about centuries 1-3: no canon. In fact, in the first century, what of the NT had been written had not likely been widely disseminated–that’s probably true until quite a while after the canonization of the Bible, given the practical difficulties of copying, delivering, and reading (literacy) of the time.

So perhaps a rephrasing of the question would be “what did the Church do before it had the Bible (NT)?”

 

[ellammcg]

1. Bible Believing churches are a misnomer. Sure they believe the bible is the inspired word of God. But generally its a pieced meal belief system so partial bible believing church would be more accurate because only those things that are emphasised by that church leaders are believed. If scripture shows something that favors Catholicism it is redefined to mean something else.

How true. My church pastor (including visiting pastors/missionaries) all state that “we take the Bible literally” but in truth we most certainly do not. Not when Jesus spoke to Peter about being the rock, not about communion, not about baptism, not about perservering to the end, etc. in fact not in any case that a Catholic would or does take the Bible literally.

On a side note, what is the Tiber bungee jumping team?

 

[sandusky]

Arandur:

That’s so rich, I had to respond.
Can I ask you a question? Who do you think are “true members of the Body of Christ?” The ones who “aren’t gullible?” I want to know so that I can figure out just how funny this statement is.

I’m pleased that my statement provided some levity for you; that said, I also provided a context.

Arandur:

Without reading Wisdomseeker’s mind, it’s pretty easy to see the point about centuries 1-3: no canon.

The authority of the writings of the apostles is based upon authorship, and not upon the church’s recognition of that authorship and subsequent canonization.

Furthermore, the manuscripts were available from the time of their writing.

Arandur:

In fact, in the first century, what of the NT had been written had not likely been widely disseminated–that’s probably true until quite a while after the canonization of the Bible, given the practical difficulties of copying, delivering, and reading (literacy) of the time.

“Probably true?” Thanks for the honesty of your uncertainty.

Arandur:

So perhaps a rephrasing of the question would be “what did the Church do before it had the Bible (NT)?”

I believe that would change the whole spirit of wisdomseeker’s original question, but, you can take that up with him.

 

[wisdomseeker]

I would certainly hope that the Church of the first, third and fifth centuries believed in the Bible, but perhaps they didn’t; perhaps you’re correct.

What evidence do you offer that the Church of the first, third and fifth centuries didn’t believe in the Bible, wisdomseeker?

no they did not. they believed in Jesus and what jesus did, told to them by the Apostles then, the successors of the Apostles.

no matter how much you try avoiding answering the question the question still remains. answer please.

there was no people going around with the Bible under their arms preaching against the Church.

see my point now that i explained to you?

plus everything you know today came from the Catholic Church. read history. except for the changes implemented by the rebellious one who introduced new beliefs to you.

blind leading the blind. ML teachings continue to blind many to this day. many see, many dont.

make no mistake, it is your responsibility to find the Truth.

the Truth is Jesus and everything He said. you choose to remain with what you think you understand from the Bible but ignoring what you cannot understand.

what makes you think you can determine who is telling the Truth, tthe Church or those who rebelled against the Church because they considered themselves to be better than others in the Church? the Church did not need to be reformed, some people in the Church needed to be reformed but not the Church’s teachings. so you have the Bible today, the Church has it for 2000 years. you pride yourselves in reading the Bible, but you forget how you got it.

how is that? if you could hears yourselves you would know how proud you sound. do you even know what the Church represents here on earth? i bet you dont.

:byzsoc:

 

[sambos671]

How true. My church pastor (including visiting pastors/missionaries) all state that “we take the Bible literally” but in truth we most certainly do not. Not when Jesus spoke to Peter about being the rock, not about communion, not about baptism, not about perservering to the end, etc. in fact not in any case that a Catholic would or does take the Bible literally.

On a side note, what is the Tiber bungee jumping team?

I was a cradle catholic that left the church (became protestant) for many years but God pulled me back to the faith. Kinda like bunji jumping.

 

[wisdomseeker]

I was a cradle catholic that left the church (became protestant) for many years but God pulled me back to the faith. Kinda like bunji jumping.

like i said before… some see, some dont. some just like to go around arguing about something they dont even understand what they are arguing against.

:knight1: :knight2:

 

[sambos671]

like i said before… some see, some dont. some just like to go around arguing about something they dont even understand what they are arguing against.

:knight1: :knight2:

What is your point? I have no idea what you are trying to say.

 

[wisdomseeker]

What is your point? I have no idea what you are trying to say.

this is direct to sundusk at his post i answered before it is not to you. sorry if sound this way.

:byzsoc:

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I’m still hoping to hear from some Protestants on my questions (Semper?):

1. What would lead you (and those listed above) to the conclusion that scripture was inerrant but that tradtion was not? What is the special property of recording tradition (which is essentially what scripture is) that leads to inerrancy?

My first reaction is because scripture is God breathed…which of course is circular in nature…this is another one I’ll have to think about.

1. What sort of argument would you envision coming from Catholics that would lead you toward (if not to) the conclusion that Catholic dogma was inerrantly true?

That is an excellent question. I don’t know how to answer that right now…This is one I am going to have to think about for a while.

Of course, Catholicism suffers from the same circularity but at least it has the virtue of being more historically consistent.

 

[Sean_Boyle]

The authority of the writings of the apostles is based upon authorship, and not upon the church’s recognition of that authorship and subsequent canonization.

Furthermore, the manuscripts were available from the time of their writing.

Great?!

Now where is that in the bible?

…what it’s not???..

well you are just expression your individual opinion then and attempting to speak from some self given authority on these matters. Besides a few post ago, you made the point “if it’s not in the bible, don’t bother with it” Your opinion above isn’t in the text of the bible.

another self defeating argument that ends with you changing the topic to avoid your confirmation with a little bit of the truth.

 

[Arandur]

I’m pleased that my statement provided some levity for you; that said, I also provided a context.

What context? Why do you find it so difficult to answer a question? Even if you think you’ve already answered it, you don’t seem to want to point out where you did. Just answer the questions.

The authority of the writings of the apostles is based upon authorship, and not upon the church’s recognition of that authorship and subsequent canonization.

Oh? And do you believe that all of the NT was written directly by Apostles? How do you know? If we find another writing or quotation from an Apostle, does that automatically make it Scripture?

That doesn’t even really matter for the point at hand. How did the Church know what to believe before they had Bibles?

Furthermore, the manuscripts were available from the time of their writing.

How widely available? How did people know they were Scripture and where to find them? They did not appear instantly after Pentecost, so how did the Church know what to believe during that time?

“Probably true?” Thanks for the honesty of your uncertainty.

“Probably true” that the NT wasn’t widely disseminated like full-canon Bibles until after canonization. Man, if you have that much trouble understanding what you read and not distorting its meaning, how can you possibly expect to get anything reliable out of Scripture?

The lack of widespread dissemination was due to the practical difficulties of the time. Including widespread illiteracy, which meant that most people had to rely on literate people to pass on the message. Do you dispute any of that?

I believe that would change the whole spirit of wisdomseeker’s original question, but, you can take that up with him.

Why don’t you have the courage to just answer the question?

 

[TheJew]

:kissme:Well why are you catholic? It’s a religion that does not like gays and ,in history, killed people who did not believe in what they did. When you die nothing happens there is nothing no colour, nothing. It will be like that for eternity no stpping it. It goes on and on nothing changes you see nothing, think nothing, and feel nothing forever. Deal with it. Don’t cry about the truth just try to live as long as you can and make a difference in your life and others. If you want to be catholic do it in fear of god existing. If it does exist it will allow you to go to heaven if it doesn’t well you’re in trouble or a very, very long time.