D
Dokimas
Guest
I agree but I’m sure we don’t agree which doctrines are from the apostles.
- Status
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
Let’s see… Who would be more qualified to better know the doctrine of the Apostles? The Church that gave us the Bible, the Catholic Church? The Catholic Church, who was there 2000 years ago and passed down records and traditions, example, the Didache, or the Protestant, non-Catholic Christians who came fifteen-hundred years after the fact and then rejected early Christian documents and Christian tradition… because they are “too Catholic” …
On another note, up until about fifty years ago, all Christian denominations were opposed to birth control and now the Catholic Church, stands alone on that issue and recently, some non-Catholic, Christian denominations officially gave their blessings to and officially approved homosexual marriages. So, yes Catholic and non-Catholic Christians would disagree with one another, as to who is today, doctrinally closer to the Apostles. Finally, aren’t Catholic priests and nuns the only religious’ who take a vow of celibacy and poverty…seems that I saw that somewhere in the Bible…
Your thoughts?
J
joe370
Guest
Sola scriptura advocates, we can’t have it both ways regarding oral tradition?
Historical fact as per all scholars: It was the tradition (first 400 years of Christianity) - of Jesus’ church that Jesus’ church relied on, to make the clear distinction between sacred scripture and specious scripture. When in doubt, regarding the written word, the CC leadership, (forever guided by the HS, into all truth, thank God) - regardless of geographical location, did not simply grab the bible off their shelves to defend their position, as to what was sacred scripture and what was NOT. The CC relied heavily on apostolic tradition, passed down from one generation to the next. As a matter of fact, depending on where one lived for the first 400 years of Christianity, made a big difference as to what one considered “all” scripture. The CC didn’t really come into its own until Christianity was legalized in the 4th century, and it was, at this juncture, only out of necessity, (due to the confusion regarding what was inspired and what was not) - that the CC finally identified and defined the written word, as we know it today. As a former SS advocate, I slowly began to realize that the bible alone as the Christians sole source of faith and final authority, would have been absolutely impossible for hundreds of years, for the simple fact that the bible, as we know it today (codified and bound by the CC) - simply did not exist. This really bothered me as a former SS advocate.
The canonized, bound bible that we all take for granted today, was, without question, NOT the benchmark for** making the distinction **between God’s ordained, inspired written word and all of the other bogus writings being disseminated throughout the Roman Empire, as God’s ordained, inspired written word, and this was a real problem for Christianity, for the simple fact that heretical movements were popping up and using what they claimed to be, the written word of God, to bolster their movement; gnosticism is just one example. It was then that I asked myself, what was the solution for Christianity? And then it hit me! God left us with His church to face this ongoing problem that existed, until God’s established church leadership finally settled the matter once and for all, centuries after Jesus spoke His Word. It was this realization that helped me to see, long ago, one stark fact: no CC - , no codified, bound, inspired written word of God. This was key to my reliance on the CC and my acceptance of the codified, bound holy bible as the inspired word of God, which at one time had no solid form, as we know it today, or even for the first 400 years of Christianity.
Both oral and written tradition were absolutely critical/necessary for the CC to be able to eventually canonize/codify the written word, as we know it today, (almost 400 years after the apostolic age)- of which all protestants (myself as a former protestant included) - blindly believe, simply always existed, and was never doubted, since the time of the apostles. This, I eventually learned, was nothing more than my misunderstanding of the historical facts, and of course I am not trying to impose them on anyone else here at this thread; I am just illustrating how things, as a former SS advocate, slowly started to unfold for me.
Sola scriptura advocates, why should any of us today trust these preserved written traditions, in the form of the bible, codified by the CC, again, with the aid of both written tradition and oral tradition (versus the man-made tradition that the codified, bound bible, simply, always existed) - if in fact apostolic, oral tradition, passed down from generation to generation, is not to be trusted?
Let me elaborate, for this was critical to my acceptance of the bible as the inspired word of God! But first, let me say: All Christians belonging to the CC agree and believe that scripture is scripture because God so ordained it, inspired it, oversaw its writing, its publication, its distribution, and its preservation via Jesus’ universal church, forever guided by the spirit of truth, into all truth, until Jesus’ return. To not believe this is to deny the teaching of the bible. I just wanted to get that fact out of the way so my SS advocate friends do not use it as their rebuttal.
Continued…
Historical fact as per all scholars: It was the tradition (first 400 years of Christianity) - of Jesus’ church that Jesus’ church relied on, to make the clear distinction between sacred scripture and specious scripture. When in doubt, regarding the written word, the CC leadership, (forever guided by the HS, into all truth, thank God) - regardless of geographical location, did not simply grab the bible off their shelves to defend their position, as to what was sacred scripture and what was NOT. The CC relied heavily on apostolic tradition, passed down from one generation to the next. As a matter of fact, depending on where one lived for the first 400 years of Christianity, made a big difference as to what one considered “all” scripture. The CC didn’t really come into its own until Christianity was legalized in the 4th century, and it was, at this juncture, only out of necessity, (due to the confusion regarding what was inspired and what was not) - that the CC finally identified and defined the written word, as we know it today. As a former SS advocate, I slowly began to realize that the bible alone as the Christians sole source of faith and final authority, would have been absolutely impossible for hundreds of years, for the simple fact that the bible, as we know it today (codified and bound by the CC) - simply did not exist. This really bothered me as a former SS advocate.
The canonized, bound bible that we all take for granted today, was, without question, NOT the benchmark for** making the distinction **between God’s ordained, inspired written word and all of the other bogus writings being disseminated throughout the Roman Empire, as God’s ordained, inspired written word, and this was a real problem for Christianity, for the simple fact that heretical movements were popping up and using what they claimed to be, the written word of God, to bolster their movement; gnosticism is just one example. It was then that I asked myself, what was the solution for Christianity? And then it hit me! God left us with His church to face this ongoing problem that existed, until God’s established church leadership finally settled the matter once and for all, centuries after Jesus spoke His Word. It was this realization that helped me to see, long ago, one stark fact: no CC - , no codified, bound, inspired written word of God. This was key to my reliance on the CC and my acceptance of the codified, bound holy bible as the inspired word of God, which at one time had no solid form, as we know it today, or even for the first 400 years of Christianity.
Both oral and written tradition were absolutely critical/necessary for the CC to be able to eventually canonize/codify the written word, as we know it today, (almost 400 years after the apostolic age)- of which all protestants (myself as a former protestant included) - blindly believe, simply always existed, and was never doubted, since the time of the apostles. This, I eventually learned, was nothing more than my misunderstanding of the historical facts, and of course I am not trying to impose them on anyone else here at this thread; I am just illustrating how things, as a former SS advocate, slowly started to unfold for me.
Sola scriptura advocates, why should any of us today trust these preserved written traditions, in the form of the bible, codified by the CC, again, with the aid of both written tradition and oral tradition (versus the man-made tradition that the codified, bound bible, simply, always existed) - if in fact apostolic, oral tradition, passed down from generation to generation, is not to be trusted?
Let me elaborate, for this was critical to my acceptance of the bible as the inspired word of God! But first, let me say: All Christians belonging to the CC agree and believe that scripture is scripture because God so ordained it, inspired it, oversaw its writing, its publication, its distribution, and its preservation via Jesus’ universal church, forever guided by the spirit of truth, into all truth, until Jesus’ return. To not believe this is to deny the teaching of the bible. I just wanted to get that fact out of the way so my SS advocate friends do not use it as their rebuttal.
Continued…
J
joe370
Guest
Now, certain geographical regions in the Roman empire, for the first 300 years of Christianity, accepted, for example, Hebrews, 2 Peter, James, 2 John, 3 John, Revelation while others recognized them, but did not view them on the same level as the rest of the NT books. Again, without doubt, some geographical areas, always accepted these disputed NT books, while others held them at bay, even considering them to be forgeries. For example, the Muratorian canon, dating from the end of the second century, does not include James, Hebrews, 3 John, or 1 and 2 Peter; it also includes the Apocalypse of Peter, not found in our present day NT. With that said, even though we all know that God so ordained the word, inspired the word, oversaw its writing, its publication, its preservation, its distribution, it took the CC leadership to finally discern Jesus’ authentic written word, hundreds of years later, and they accomplished this by deferring to apostolic tradition, upheld and maintained by the CC, forever guided by the HS. God, only eventually, provided a means for the world to make a clear distinction between His authentic, inspired written word, embraced by many, both inside and outside the CC, and man-made tradition which gave way to uninspired, pseudo scripture, believed by many, both inside and outside the CC, and He did this by using the CC to once and for all, identify and define the inspired written word, centuries after the apostolic age. If the SS advocates contention is that the CC did not play a pivotal role in determining what was in fact the ordained and inspired word of God, and what was not the ordained, inspired word of God, then how is it that the confusion surrounding these these books, for the first 400 years of Christianity, was finally cleared up, once and for all?
If God so ordained said contents of scripture, inspired said contents of scripture, oversaw the contents of scripture, the publication of the contents of scripture, the distribution of the contents of scripture and the preservation of the contents of scripture, then why so much confusion as to what was or was not the ordained, inspired written word of God through those early centuries of Christianity? After all, what was being preserved and distributed as the inspired word of God, prior to the CC leadership setting the canon, once and for all, was still being questioned, depending on where one lived, regarding only certain books of course.
Of course, my point is, that God did in fact ordain the word, inspire the word, oversaw its publication, preservation and distribution, but He did so through His established church leaders via the perpetual guidance of the HS, and that is why we can trust the CC regarding other things. God’s church, the CC, was the vehicle by which He defined, preserved and distributed His ordained, inspired written word, and again, the CC deferred to apostolic tradition, passed down from generation to generation, to finally, once and for all, collect, select, compile and codify the written word as we know it today. For anyone to suggest that the CC had nothing to do with the correct inclusion of the books in the bible or the correct exclusion of the books from the bible, is to alter historical fact, and we can trust that the CC got it right, only because we can trust that the HS guided the CC to do so, which of course is faith based, just as all things are, in Christianity. However, what is not either historically accurate or faith based, is to believe that the bible fell out of the sky in AD 100, into the hands of each and every Christian, leather-bound and monogrammed with the words: all scripture is inspired…LOL…
Sola scriptura advocates, scripture says: all scripture is inspired. Please identify “all” scripture without referencing the CC? Let’s pretend for the moment that the CC never existed. Use another source outside the CC to arrive at your conclusions regarding what “all” scripture is, keeping in mind that scripture alone does not identify or define what “all” scripture is! Keeping in mind that Jesus did not come down to earth (Holy spirit notwithstanding) - after His ascension, and identify or define what “all” scripture is. Even if He did, He still, logically speaking, would have left the world, in His absence, with the means to protect and safeguard “all” scripture from being tampered with, altered or misinterpreted.
If God so ordained said contents of scripture, inspired said contents of scripture, oversaw the contents of scripture, the publication of the contents of scripture, the distribution of the contents of scripture and the preservation of the contents of scripture, then why so much confusion as to what was or was not the ordained, inspired written word of God through those early centuries of Christianity? After all, what was being preserved and distributed as the inspired word of God, prior to the CC leadership setting the canon, once and for all, was still being questioned, depending on where one lived, regarding only certain books of course.
Of course, my point is, that God did in fact ordain the word, inspire the word, oversaw its publication, preservation and distribution, but He did so through His established church leaders via the perpetual guidance of the HS, and that is why we can trust the CC regarding other things. God’s church, the CC, was the vehicle by which He defined, preserved and distributed His ordained, inspired written word, and again, the CC deferred to apostolic tradition, passed down from generation to generation, to finally, once and for all, collect, select, compile and codify the written word as we know it today. For anyone to suggest that the CC had nothing to do with the correct inclusion of the books in the bible or the correct exclusion of the books from the bible, is to alter historical fact, and we can trust that the CC got it right, only because we can trust that the HS guided the CC to do so, which of course is faith based, just as all things are, in Christianity. However, what is not either historically accurate or faith based, is to believe that the bible fell out of the sky in AD 100, into the hands of each and every Christian, leather-bound and monogrammed with the words: all scripture is inspired…LOL…
Sola scriptura advocates, scripture says: all scripture is inspired. Please identify “all” scripture without referencing the CC? Let’s pretend for the moment that the CC never existed. Use another source outside the CC to arrive at your conclusions regarding what “all” scripture is, keeping in mind that scripture alone does not identify or define what “all” scripture is! Keeping in mind that Jesus did not come down to earth (Holy spirit notwithstanding) - after His ascension, and identify or define what “all” scripture is. Even if He did, He still, logically speaking, would have left the world, in His absence, with the means to protect and safeguard “all” scripture from being tampered with, altered or misinterpreted.
J
joe370
Guest
Jimmy, just another question, (once I answered with honesty) - that led me to the CC. Either the CC is the church founded by God, and God’s church fell by the wayside, or the CC is not the church founded by God, which simply leaves the world with all churches founded by mere man, as opposed to God.
If either scenarios were true I would not be a Christian today.
J
joe370
Guest
We can’t have it both ways…
Did Jesus, according to the bible, promise us an authoritative book, or an authoritative Church?
If He promised us an authoritative book, why the need for all the authoritative churches in the world today? Just take it right to the authoritative book!
If He promised us an authoritative church, then which one?
Should the sola scriptura advocate, regardless of denomination, defer to the bible alone as their only source of authority or their respective church leadership as their only source of authority?
Did Jesus, according to the bible, promise us an authoritative book, or an authoritative Church?
If He promised us an authoritative book, why the need for all the authoritative churches in the world today? Just take it right to the authoritative book!
If He promised us an authoritative church, then which one?
Should the sola scriptura advocate, regardless of denomination, defer to the bible alone as their only source of authority or their respective church leadership as their only source of authority?
J
joe370
Guest
The defining of the canon of scripture was the result of development (according to the early church fathers) - by a fallible ecclesial body, over a long period of time.
How is the following even possible:
A fallible Collection of Infallible books…
How is the following even possible:
A fallible Collection of Infallible books…
D
Dokimas
Guest
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
You’re correct the Holy Spirit inspired people… Catholic people… the same Catholic people that the Holy Spirit inspired to collect, put into otder, translated and approved the Bible… right?
J
joe370
Guest
**Dokimas [/quote said:;7046332]The Holy Spirit gave us the NT as He inspired people.
Ultimately, yes, that is true, however, according to the early church fathers,* (the same people that defined and safeguarded the written word)* - not all the books were immediately accepted, and no canon was assumed or definitive** for 393 years after the resurrection of JC, **which throws tremendous doubt on the theory that we can, by virtue of the holy spirit alone, surmise what is and is not the authentic word of God. Leaders, in the CC were critical in the decision making process. For example, you trust that the book of Revelation and the book of Hebrews are both part of the inspired word of God, even though they were rejected by many in the CC in different parts of the Hellenistic world, early on - why? By the way, the preceding is not my opinion; it is a historical fact as per all protestant scholars!!!
Dok, scripture says: “all scripture is inspired…” Please identify **“all” scripture, given to all by the Holy Spirit, without referencing the table of contents in the bible, put there by the CC? Let’s pretend for the moment that the CC never even existed. Use another source outside the table of contents of the holy bible, and the CC to arrive at your conclusions regarding what “all” scripture is, keeping in mind that scripture alone does not identify or define what “all” scripture is! Keeping in mind that Jesus did not come down to earth (Holy spirit notwithstanding) - after His ascension, and identify or define what “all” **scripture is. Until the CC in the latter part of the 4th century, defined what “all” scripture was, nobody knew definitively what **“all” scripture was, as per all scholars, protestant or otherwise. Even if Jesus did, He still, logically speaking, would have left the world, in His absence, with the means to protect and safeguard “all” **scripture from being tampered with, altered or misinterpreted, and of course He did.
Do you believe Jesus’ church to be said means? If so, then which one and, is the Holy Spirit still guiding Jesus’ church into all truth or did that end once the bible was finally codified by Jesus’ church, in the latter part of the 4th century?
If possible could you not speak in such broad generalities as you did with Jimmy? Thanks much…
J
joe370
Guest
Dok, Schaick…If all of Paul’s writings are inspired Scripture then why was the first letter to the Corinthians (the one that preceded 1 Corinthians) - or Paul’s letter to Laodicea, not preserved and passed on to us in written form? Perhaps the message of these 2 missing letters were passed down to us by word as opposed to letter.
"I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing you that you must not associate…" 1 Cor 5:9
Paul’s letter to Laodicea (Col 4:16); was it important for them, but not for us?
*“After this letter has been read to you, see that it is also read in the church of the Laodiceans **and that you in turn read the letter from Laodicea.” ***
"I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing you that you must not associate…" 1 Cor 5:9
Paul’s letter to Laodicea (Col 4:16); was it important for them, but not for us?
*“After this letter has been read to you, see that it is also read in the church of the Laodiceans **and that you in turn read the letter from Laodicea.” ***
J
joe370
Guest
Schaick, you answered my question on the Trinity (thanks again by the way ) - so, perhaps you can help me out here:
Where in the bible does the bible say that the bible is the Christians final authority, all sufficient etc…? Essentially, we are all left with the bible alone to determine its authenticity, regarding its authoritative status. To say that the bible is the Christians final authority because the bible says that the bible is the Christians final authority, seems a bit of a stretch, even if it does say that, but it does not, or does it Schaick?
Clearly, as a SS advocate, one must rely on the bible alone to determine whether or not the bible is in fact the Christians final authority, so please, provide biblical passages that state that the bible is the Christians final authority, and if you achieve this, (as you did with the Trinitarian dogma regarding the HS and the Father and the HS and the Son) - then how does one go about knowing, with certainty, which fallible interpretation of the Christians final authority (the infallible word of God) - is the correct interpretation? I mean, there is either one truth regarding any one teaching or there is not.
The apostles were carried along by the HS and they eventually committed truth to writing, but where do they tell us that the word of God is the Christians sole/final authority?
Thanks Schaick…
) - so, perhaps you can help me out here:Where in the bible does the bible say that the bible is the Christians final authority, all sufficient etc…? Essentially, we are all left with the bible alone to determine its authenticity, regarding its authoritative status. To say that the bible is the Christians final authority because the bible says that the bible is the Christians final authority, seems a bit of a stretch, even if it does say that, but it does not, or does it Schaick?
Clearly, as a SS advocate, one must rely on the bible alone to determine whether or not the bible is in fact the Christians final authority, so please, provide biblical passages that state that the bible is the Christians final authority, and if you achieve this, (as you did with the Trinitarian dogma regarding the HS and the Father and the HS and the Son) - then how does one go about knowing, with certainty, which fallible interpretation of the Christians final authority (the infallible word of God) - is the correct interpretation? I mean, there is either one truth regarding any one teaching or there is not.
The apostles were carried along by the HS and they eventually committed truth to writing, but where do they tell us that the word of God is the Christians sole/final authority?
Thanks Schaick…
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
I like reading all of your posts but I especially liked this one.Ultimately, yes, that is true, however, according to the early church fathers,* (the same people that defined and safeguarded the written word)* - not all the books were immediately accepted, and no canon was assumed or definitive** for 393 years after the resurrection of JC, **which throws tremendous doubt on the theory that we can, by virtue of the holy spirit alone, surmise what is and is not the authentic word of God. Leaders, in the CC were critical in the decision making process. For example, you trust that the book of Revelation and the book of Hebrews are both part of the inspired word of God, even though they were rejected by many in the CC in different parts of the Hellenistic world, early on - why? By the way, the preceding is not my opinion; it is a historical fact as per all protestant scholars!!!
Dok, scripture says: “all scripture is inspired…” Please identify **“all” scripture, given to all by the Holy Spirit, without referencing the table of contents in the bible, put there by the CC? Let’s pretend for the moment that the CC never even existed. Use another source outside the table of contents of the holy bible, and the CC to arrive at your conclusions regarding what “all” scripture is, keeping in mind that scripture alone does not identify or define what “all” scripture is! Keeping in mind that Jesus did not come down to earth (Holy spirit notwithstanding) - after His ascension, and identify or define what “all” **scripture is. Until the CC in the latter part of the 4th century, defined what “all” scripture was, nobody knew definitively what **“all” scripture was, as per all scholars, protestant or otherwise. Even if Jesus did, He still, logically speaking, would have left the world, in His absence, with the means to protect and safeguard “all” **scripture from being tampered with, altered or misinterpreted, and of course He did.
Do you believe Jesus’ church to be said means? If so, then which one and, is the Holy Spirit still guiding Jesus’ church into all truth or did that end once the bible was finally codified by Jesus’ church, in the latter part of the 4th century?
If possible could you not speak in such broad generalities as you did with Jimmy? Thanks much…
S
schaick
Guest
Is that the same as saying…The Quran is from allah because the book says it is from allah? We know our Bible is from GOD because it contains prophecies fufilled to proof it is from GOD.Schaick, you answered my question on the Trinity (thanks again by the way
Where in the bible does the bible say that the bible is the Christians final authority, all sufficient etc…? Essentially, we are all left with the bible alone to determine its authenticity, regarding its authoritative status. To say that the bible is the Christians final authority because the bible says that the bible is the Christians final authority, seems a bit of a stretch, even if it does say that, but it does not, or does it Schaick?
Or it is like saying Mohammad was a prophet because he said I am a prophet. We have outside sources and eyewitnesses proving who Jesus was- Mohammad did not.
We have Jesus as our example- HE looked to Scripture to answer an issue, settle disputes. Jesus is GOD- we have a person of the GODhead backing up what HE is saying by quoting Scripture. I guess I am at a loss as why that isn’t enough proof for Catholics.
Did Jesus ever look to Tradition to answer a question, solve a dispute? Jesus mentions traditions 8 times all in a negative manner. Yes these were man-made traditions.
We must be careful to not follow man’s traditions?
Mark 7
7They worship me in vain;
their teachings are but rules taught by men.’ 8You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men."
…
9And he said to them: “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!
…
13Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.”
Some of GOD’s traditions - The Sabbath, Passover and Unleaven Bread, Feast of Pentecost, Feast of Trumpets, Day of Attonement, Feast of the Tabernacle, Last Great Day.
Which traditions did Jesus follow? Paul? The early Church Fathers? Why aren’t we following them today?
Again it is Jesus that tells us by example.
We have multiple witnesses telling us that GOD’s Word is true, throughout the Bible. Where does it say such and such a tradition is true?:
Psalms 119
160 All your words are true;
all your righteous laws are eternal.
Where should we look to see if there is something similar said about tradition? Is it said any where - to sanctify them with your tradition? Believe through tradition?
John 17
17Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth.
…
20"My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message,
Jesus looked to Scripture to teach/correct:
Matthew 22
29Jesus replied, "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God.
Isaiah 8
19 When men tell you to consult mediums and spiritists, who whisper and mutter, should not a people inquire of their God? Why consult the dead on behalf of the living? 20 To the law and to the testimony!
We are saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth. What is this truth? GOD’s Word.
In using the following Scriptures to support tradition the Catholic Church is using the Bible as the final authority in validating tradition. The tradition should be able to stand alone on it’s own merit for it to be equal in authority with Scripture.
2 Thessalonians 2
13But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God chose you to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth. 14He called you to this through our gospel, that you might share in the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the tradition we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.
What exactly is the doctrinal content of the apostolic Tradition that we need for our salvation?
1 Peter 1
18Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;
Where does the Bible say the following about tradition?
2 Timothy 3
16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
It is traditions that have divided the church. Are traditions what I call applications of the same basic faith that we all hold?
Which application/tradition you choose to follow does not save you and in fact can condemn you if it is a wrong or not from GOD.
**Following Scripture will not condemn you because it is truth. **
D
Dokimas
Guest
Christian people were inspired. They are nothing (just ask them); the Holy Spirit is everything.
N
nickybr38
Guest
Scripture has divided the Church actually, into many little splinters.
Further, what decided which NT letters would be Scripture? Tradition. If this is true then I’m sorry but your New Testament is now no longer reliable.
If God cannot, through the Holy Spirit, guide the Church through the anointed leaders then neither can He guide men through the Holy Spirit to write and preserve Scripture.
It doesn’t make any sense that all He’d leave us with is a book. A book that MANY cannot read (and could NOT read for the most part when the Church began). A book that many read but cannot understand. A book that was COMPILED by a Church that is STEEPED in tradition.
I have to say I just don’t understand your point.
I could go through all of your verses and explain to you what they really mean but I just think it’s fruitless. I don’t mean that in a ‘you wouldn’t understand’ way, I just mean that in a ‘you’re pretty set in your ways and just as a bible verse won’t sway me, neither will it sway you’.
S
schaick
Guest
Interesting accusing GOD’s Word for splintering the Church when in fact it was man-made money for indulgences that did the final splintering.
Long before there was a Catholic Church- as opposed to the universal Church that Jesus built our early Church Fathers recognized what was Scripture. I have read that the New Testament could be written from the writting of the early Church Fathers, they referenced all but a small sampling.
Men don’t always listen to the Holy Spirit.
It is not just a Book but a concrete bit of evidence of what we need to do to have an amazing relationship with GOD.
Yes I understand GOD’s word won’t sway you. Actually Bible verses have swayed me and why I believe GOD’s Word to be sufficient in the matters of explaining what I need to do for my Salvation.
What do Catholic Sacred Traditions tell you is needed for your salvation?
J
joe370
Guest
Hey Schaick…
What I asked was: Where in the bible does the bible say that the bible is the Christians final authority, all sufficient etc… for resolving differences, doctrinally speaking or otherwise? This was a question, as a SS advocate, which was impossible for me to answer, but I am always open to new suggestions or explanations that might clear the air for me.
Well, Muslims believe that the Quran is from Allah because Mohammad said so, not because the Quran says so, and that is not circular reasoning. I don’t know a lot about the Quran but I do know that Muslims do not believe that the Quran came to them without any human intervention to determine what should be in it and what should not, but that really has nothing to do with Christianity or my question vis-a-vis the bible as the Christians final authority for resolving differences, doctrinally speaking or otherwise.
Very true Schaick. However, I did not ask if the bible was from God, which of course contains prophecies fulfilled, to prove that it is from GOD. We are in agreement there my friend.
What I asked was: Where in the bible does the bible say that the bible is the Christians final authority, all sufficient etc… for resolving differences, doctrinally speaking or otherwise? This was a question, as a SS advocate, which was impossible for me to answer, but I am always open to new suggestions or explanations that might clear the air for me.
J
joe370
Guest
Schaick, you said, in response to my question:
Perhaps now you see why, God, interpreting scripture, responding to an issue or settling disputes regarding scripture, in 1st century Palestine - is not enough proof for me, regarding fallible people interpreting scripture, responding to an issue or settling disputes regarding scripture, long after God walked the earth?
I never mentioned tradition, but I will talk about it, after you address my question, that is, if you want to. We cannot have it both ways regarding authority. I know that the bible is the God ordained and inspired word of God, but where in the bible does the bible tell us that the God ordained and inspired word of God is the Christians final authority for resolving or settling disputes, just as God did, regarding the OT, when He walked the earth in the 1st century?
OK, but Jesus is God so His interpretation is infallible. This has nothing to do with my question: how does one go about knowing, with certainty, which fallible interpretation of the Christians final authority (the infallible word of God) - is the correct interpretation? Again, there is either one truth regarding any one teaching or there is not.
Perhaps now you see why, God, interpreting scripture, responding to an issue or settling disputes regarding scripture, in 1st century Palestine - is not enough proof for me, regarding fallible people interpreting scripture, responding to an issue or settling disputes regarding scripture, long after God walked the earth?
Confused!!!
I never mentioned tradition, but I will talk about it, after you address my question, that is, if you want to. We cannot have it both ways regarding authority. I know that the bible is the God ordained and inspired word of God, but where in the bible does the bible tell us that the God ordained and inspired word of God is the Christians final authority for resolving or settling disputes, just as God did, regarding the OT, when He walked the earth in the 1st century?
J
joe370
Guest
Schaick, you said:
OK, but I am not questioning the veracity of sacred scripture; I am questioning how one can know, with certainty, which fallible interpretation of the infallible word of God is an error free interpretation?
- Status