Why would the Catholic Church put together a Book that disproves thier own doctrine?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JustaServant
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
hooray for you Nicea325,
indeed there are many things Jesus handed down through
the Apostles which are not in the Bible(cf. Jn 21:25)
Jesus did indeed acknowledged that scriptures was
effective in dealing w/ the Devil(cf. Matt. 4) But
that was BEFORE the New Testament!

anyone interested in good Catholic Chirstian
music visit my member’s profile, please.
 
Nicea325 said:
Wrong! No ECF ever wrote about Sola Scriptura let alone even defend it as other doctrines. You are merely injecting a false teaching into their words which not one ever supports.
Click to expand...
Greetings, Nicea.

No ECF ever needed to, in the sense that a Lutheran today might refer to it, since during their time there was no Schism that divided the authority of the Church.

Blessings, my friend, and I hope you are well.

Jon
 
JonNC said:
Greetings, Nicea.

No ECF ever needed to, in the sense that a Lutheran today might refer to it, since during their time there was no Schism that divided the authority of the Church.

Blessings, my friend, and I hope you are well.

Jon
Click to expand...
And greetings to you my friend. Hope all is well?
 
Last night I was texting someone I had met earlier in the day. I had mentioned that I had recently converted. In a text he suddenly asked me “Why did I become Catholic?” I gave him the reasons. Then I told him to think about something and I brought up the topic of this thread. He’s searching. He says his faith died in combat. I told him it is just hiding someplace safe and that God is waiting for him.

I knew that I’d be able to use this topic at some point. So I’m praying for this man.
 
I told him his faith is hiding in some safe place…is one of the best answers I have heard…

Thanks, Maltmom…it is full of grace…
 
maltmom said:
Last night I was texting someone I had met earlier in the day. I had mentioned that I had recently converted. In a text he suddenly asked me “Why did I become Catholic?” I gave him the reasons. Then I told him to think about something and I brought up the topic of this thread. He’s searching. He says his faith died in combat. I told him it is just hiding someplace safe and that God is waiting for him.

I knew that I’d be able to use this topic at some point. So I’m praying for this man.
Click to expand...
Praying with you.

Jon
 
KathleenGee said:
I told him his faith is hiding in some safe place…is one of the best answers I have heard…

Thanks, Maltmom…it is full of grace…
Click to expand...
Thank you Kathleen. It broke my heart when he said he thought his faith died in combat. I’m sure the Holy Spirit gave me to words to speak to him.
 
mark_a said:
I never cease to be amazed at the presumptuous nature of some of these folks. I honestly think it is caused by spiritual immaturity.

Of the former Catholics I personally know that have that zealous anti-Catholic attitude, every one of them has a marriage or similar moral issue underlying it all.
Click to expand...
Ugh. I cringe when I see this. I understand that you aren’t using your observation to then generalize all former Catholics, but even bringing up the anecdote just comes off as tasteless, to me. I’ve heard this same claim numerous times when I was a Mormon, and indeed when I left Mormonism people in my Ward immediately began speculating whether it was because I had become a drunk or gone gay!

Even assuming sure knowledge of a person’s turpitude, you can’t just assume that it is then the cause of their leaving the Catholic Church unless they actually tell you that the Catholic Church is so evil because it [doesn’t allow remarriage, is homophobic, etc.]. If it is, however, the ex-Catholic’s position that the Catholic Church teaches something contradictory to the Bible, then address that instead of the person’s character (whether imagined or actual).
 
LegoGE1947 said:
Actually, the Bible says quite the opposite in several places, such as the end of John’s gospel where we read that " if everything Jesus said or did were written down, the whole world couldn’t contain all the books that would be written." Also we have in the Acts where Phillip comes upon the eunuch reading the book of Isaiah and the eunuch says he is unable to understand what is written unless someone explains it to him. If the Bible taught everything why would the eunuch need someone to teach him?
Click to expand...
The answer is that the eunich was Ethiopian, that is, he was not Jewish. He never read the pre-christian writings and therefore he needed background information. This is the same kind of teaching that any good Jewish father would have given his young son and this is how knowledge is spread from one generation to another.
 
Cinderella20000 said:
The answer is that the eunich was Ethiopian, that is, he was not Jewish. He never read the pre-christian writings and therefore he needed background information. This is the same kind of teaching that any good Jewish father would have given his young son and this is how knowledge is spread from one generation to another.
Click to expand...
Well, first of all what you are describing is precisely what Catholics mean by unwritten Tradition! So I’m not sure how this point supports Protestantism.

Secondly, we don’t in fact know that the eunuch wasn’t Jewish. There were Jews in that part of the world, and it seems odd that a Gentile would have gone to Jerusalem on pilgrimage. Maybe he was on a diplomatic mission or was a God-fearer or whatever, but you’re making a big leap in assuming that he wasn’t Jewish.

There’s no evidence that a messianic reading of Isaiah 53 would have been among the things any good Jewish father taught his son.

Edwin
 
My explanation wasn’t supporting Protestantism or Catholocism, it was simply an explanation as to why the Ethiopian needed more information about what he was reading. He obviously realized it meant something very important but as I have already said, he (most likely) didn’t have the Jewish background information to understand it. And a good Jewish father would explain the writings of his faith, even if he misunderstood what he was reading. It’s true, we don’t know what the purpose was for the Ethiopian’s trip. He was obviously very important to have a chariot driver and he probably wasn’t a eunich by choice. No good Jew would have permitted this procedure, which is why I speculate that he wasn’t Jewish. He most likely was an attendant where there were women present. You are making a mountain out of a mole hill concerning my explanation.
 
Cinderella20000 said:
My explanation wasn’t supporting Protestantism or Catholocism, it was simply an explanation as to why the Ethiopian needed more information about what he was reading. He obviously realized it meant something very important but as I have already said, he (most likely) didn’t have the Jewish background information to understand it. And a good Jewish father would explain the writings of his faith, even if he misunderstood what he was reading. It’s true, we don’t know what the purpose was for the Ethiopian’s trip. He was obviously very important to have a chariot driver and he probably wasn’t a eunich by choice. No good Jew would have permitted this procedure, which is why I speculate that he wasn’t Jewish. He most likely was an attendant where there were women present.
Click to expand...
You’re assuming he

a) had a choice about becoming a eunuch
b) was Jewish when it happened rather than being a later proselyte (though in that case your point about what a Jewish father would have taught would have more weight)

You’re also assuming that he was a “good” Jew and that there was a clear distinction between “good” and “bad” Jews instead of, as more normally, a lot of imperfect people who may have fudged on various bits of what they were supposed to be doing when it was convenient.

We just don’t know much about him.

Edwin
 
Nicea325 said:
What I first would like to know is where oes the Bible teach everything must be said and taught from the Bible? Still waiting to read that important piece of information.
Click to expand...
And before we can do that, we have to find where in the Bible it specifies the books that make up a valid Bible. 🙂
 
Contarini said:
You’re assuming he

a) had a choice about becoming a eunuch
b) was Jewish when it happened rather than being a later proselyte (though in that case your point about what a Jewish father would have taught would have more weight)

You’re also assuming that he was a “good” Jew and that there was a clear distinction between “good” and “bad” Jews instead of, as more normally, a lot of imperfect people who may have fudged on various bits of what they were supposed to be doing when it was convenient.

We just don’t know much about him.

Edwin
Click to expand...
You have misunderstood my points, so I will leave it up to the discerning reader who will understand them.
 
JustaServant said:
Asked this question today to a fundamentalist up in the apologetics playground. He is trying to disprove a Catholic teaching by using the “neutral source” of the Bible.
I thought I would ask both Catholics and non-Catholics this simple quesion.
It begins with the premise of course that the Catholic Church put together the Bible we have.
Why would the Catholic Church put together a Book that disproves thier own doctrine?
Click to expand...
That is the big big problem on the part of protestant churches, the quetion is why they are adopting and using the Bible as their sole authority of their teachings whereas accroding to them the Church who made the Bible is an evil? If they believe that the Catholic Church is a pagan evil church thus they must believe also that the Bible is full or error made by Satan.👍
 
sedonaman said:
Think about it. How can you have an accurate sola scriptura approach without a valid Bible? 🤷
Click to expand...
No, that wasn’t what you said. You said, “we have to find where in the Bible it specifies the books that make up a valid Bible.” Why does the Bible have to do that?

Sorry, I’m being rhetorical. I think its fair to say that the Church had/has this responsibility. With common sense, we look to the history of the Church, and there we find a general consensus about the books of the Bible, yet there also being dispute about some of them.

That is in no way inconsistent with sola scriptura.

Jon

Jon
 
Dhugz said:
That is the big big problem on the part of protestant churches, the quetion is why they are adopting and using the Bible as their sole authority of their teachings whereas accroding to them the Church who made the Bible is an evil? If they believe that the Catholic Church is a pagan evil church thus they must believe also that the Bible is full or error made by Satan.👍
Click to expand...
Or you have to define the exact point the Church entered into apostasy. Easier said than done.
 
JonNC said:
No, that wasn’t what you said. You said, “we have to find where in the Bible it specifies the books that make up a valid Bible.” Why does the Bible have to do that? …
Click to expand...
Because if you use some other source/method that tells you to use sola scripura, then you are not relying on scripture only, and [the rhetorical] you have defeated your own claim.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top