For important truths on how the Bible proves the teachings of traditional Catholic faith, its necessity for salvation, proof of creation and miracles, as well as other important spiritual and secular issues, please visit channel: MHFM1.
The Catholic Church came first, then the Bible. The Bible wasn't even compiled until the Council of Rome in 382, and printing presses weren't invented until 1440. If protestants really think that the Bible is the only way for salvation, then what about those poor souls for 1500 years who didn't have a Bible? Christ established an authority on earth to preserve His revelation and decide the Bible canon. This authority is the Holy Catholic Church.
@MysticalCity Only Jesus saves, and true faith in Him alone leads to salvation."For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not a result of works so that no one may boast." ~ Ephesians
No salvation outside of the Christ for he is God.Through having true faith in God the "Poor Souls" had righteousness accredited to them ~Hebrews 11
@MysticalCity As for the Catholic Church coming before the written word then we must ask what was Jesus referring to when he rebuked the devil in the wilderness by saying "It is written"?
@JayElleist I am not trying to disregard the church and traditions, but they are not on the same level with the word of God, they are lower courts of authority. If we find error in the established system, according to what the Bible says, we are to eradicate it. The only reason we know what is right and wrong according to Christ is by reading His word and meditating on it.
@JayElleist The Word of God is not only written and that is the problem with the idea you present. The written word is confined to paper and cannot be the ultimate authority when people confuse the context or simply do not understand the words or cannot read. Thus why the scriptures themselves point to the fact that the church is the pillar & foundation of truth where the church is made up of BOTH oral and written traditions to serve equally together to form the deposit of faith.
@JayElleist OT, The Catholic Church came before The NT was written.
Phil. 2:2 - St.Paul prays that Christians be of the same mind, of one accord. Yet there are 30,000 different "Protest"ant denominations?
1 Cor. 14:33 - God cannot be the author of the Protestant confusion. Only the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church claims and proves to be Christ's Church.
@MysticalCity God is not the author of confusion, but can light have fellowship with darkness? Just because someone claims they are of Christ doesn't mean squat if they are claiming a gospel outside of the one that is in the Bible. Satan has many different versions of Jesus, but the real Jesus convicts men of sins and offers forgiveness for true repentance. The real Jesus says take up your cross and follow me, and that means follow HIM under threat of death.
At this point Ill let u have the notion the inspired canon is only 66 books. Ill even let u have the notion that God dropped the bible out of the sky to avoid u thinking the binding of scripture is a tradition of men. But I can go to the written Word of God your ONLY source of authority, & find that the church is the pillar/foundation of truth. What came first, the inspired canon or the church? I agree 100% w/ 2 Tim 3:16, but that doesnt say ONLY or ALONE or even define what books are scripture.
That's a stupid question he is asking. The apostles such as Paul,John ect were still receiving direct revelations from Christ during their time. The full canon had not been fully written yet.
1Co 13:9-10 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
Does Scripture say that once the canon is complete that Apostolic Tradition is no longer valid? Also, does it give us a list of books which constitutes the canon?
@Mkvine All the valid Apostolic Traditions are found in scripture alone. All others are just human traditions added by men. God gave us His inspired word the 66 books of the bible written by 40 different authors. Trust the word of God not men.
Wait... Where does that say that 1). Once the Canon is complete, Apostolic Tradition is no longer valid? 2). The list of the books that constitute the Canon? 3). All valid Apostolic Traditions are in the Bible "alone"?
Why do contradict your claims & attack the bible? You say I said tradition is no longer valid. But then say that I said all valid tradition is in the bible. I guess you are confused, but hey, that's Roman Catholicism for you, its just one big paradox, right? :-)
You said that "all" tradition is contained in the Bible, and previously you said all tradition is in the bible "alone." Those are your words - "all" and "alone." WHERE in the Bible does it say that? It's a very simple question. Also, please don't ignore my question on the Canon. WHERE in the bible does it list all the books of the Canon? You're ad hominem attack shows that you can't give an answer. You believe in one big paradox - sola scriptura is not taught in scripture! :-)
@Mkvine Matthew 15:3 And He answered and said to them, “Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?
Does any of the RCC traditions violate Gods law?
WHERE in the bible does it list all the books of the Canon? You can find a list of all the "inspired books" in the contexts section of the Protestant bible. :-)LOL!
I find it very hard to take you seriously. You said that the list of the Canon is found in the "contexts section." Well, first of all, I think you mean "table of contents." Second, the table of contents is not inspired scripture. That was added by the publishers like the "American Bible Society," "Hendrickson Publishers" and many others. I find it sad that you have to go to the Publisher's addition rather than to a Scripture verse to validate your doctrine.
I agree with Matthew 15:3. I believe that any tradition that trangresses God's law is not valid. But does Scripture say ALL tradition is invalid? No. In fact, Scripture commands us to follow Apostolic tradition which does not "transgress" God's law. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 "So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter."
@Mkvine said "I believe that any tradition that trangresses God's law is not valid"
Okay, lets test just one of the RCC traditions. Let's take the worship of Mary and her being intercessor between God and man. What command does this violate? I say this breaks the 1st commandment & scripture verse 1 Timothy 2:5. Also, when one is bowing at the feet of a statue of her this is a clear violation of the 2nd commandment. This tradition I'm sure you will agree is not valid.
@InTheSpirit12 Hello, I must point out that you LOLed at the end of your comment about the context section of the Protestant bible to find the list of inspired books. I sure hope that you were not serious. I am not going to belittle your intelligence so please tell me that was a joke.
The table of contents of any bible translation is not inspired. It was not written by any biblical authors.
@InTheSpirit12 Actually you very clearly answered the question presented to you about where in the bible does it list the inspired books & you said the contexts section which was not written by any inspired writers. The canon is a binding tradition thats not found anywhere within inspired text of scripture. You are using circular logic. You said all valid tradition is in the bible, now you admit that the table of contents is not inspired so where is the valid tradition showing inspired canon?
@catchzz Nope, you misunderstood me. The context itself is not inspired. But it shows you the 66 inspired books of the bible and where to find them in the book.:-) Can you answer the question Mkvine could not answer. She agreed any tradition that violates Gods law is not valid. Do you agree with her statement?
@InTheSpirit12 Whether that was your intention on answering the question or not then you still have not answered the question posied to you. Wheres the list of inspired books within the confines of inspired scripture alone. I believe youre now covering your tracks for giving such an off-the-wall answer to the original question. If your def of sola scriptura is scripture is the only infallible rule of faith, then you need to answer that otherwise you are cutting yourself off @ the branch you sit.
@catchzz I believe the 66 books to be the infallible inspired word of God. I believe you are down playing God's word for the commandments of men. I could be wrong. Again, if tradition violates Gods commands is it a valid tradition or not?
@InTheSpirit12 We can talk about traditions but first you need to answer the question that was presented to you & you gave a foolish answer. If scripture is the only infallible rule of faith then where in the confines of inspired scripture is the infallible list of books to uphold your infallible truth? Using circular logic will not go anywhere so if thats how you want to converse, we might as well be playing chicken & the egg. Im not downplaying Gods word whatsoever, Im asking a legit question.
Sorry, but the fact that the bible does not have a specific list of the inspired books does not prove that they are not inspired writings. Nor does it disprove Sola Scriptura. But nonetheless proceed with your argument.
@InTheSpirit I can only laugh @ the sheer paradox of your answer! Im reminded of the parable of 2 builders. You built your foundation on sand. Thanks for admitting you cannnot use scripture alone as the infallible truth. As I stated earlier in response to your question if you go back & look- "The canon is a binding tradition thats not found anywhere within inspired text of scripture." Therefore how did the inspired books become bound? Are you infallibably sure the canon of the bible's correct?
@catchzz Again you proceed to attack Gods word by saying one who builds his foundation on the word of God is building on sand. Is not Jesus the Word as Jn 1:1 says? What traditions are not found in scripture that we ought to be bound to?
@InTheSpirit12 Tell me where I attacked Gods word by proving it took extra-biblical traditions to determine inspired works? Even you admitted it took extra-biblical traditions even though you first said all traditions are found in inspired works. Is His word confined to paper or is it alive & well? You made a caricature of building a foundation on sand. If I am going to believe an infallible truth, I should logically know that the foundation of that infallible truth is infallibly true, right?
@catchzz Their is a reason God had His word written. Jesus warned us not to let tradition nullify His written word. The RCC has the same problem the Pharisees had, they went beyond what is written and were being bound by the traditions of men.
@InTheSpirit12 So youre saying Gods word is confined only to paper? Do you really think that all of the division in protestantism is not the result of sola scriptura? Basically youre telling me that the extra-biblical tradition of determining inspired canon is a tradition of men. What goods a book you call infallible then? You ask "What traditions are not found in scripture that we ought to be bound to?" How many times have I answered this to you, inspired canon! Stay away from circular logic.
What did Christ say on the road to Emmaus? Luke 24:25-27. First they were divinelnot allowed to see that it was Jesus walking with them. Then He showed them from Moses and all of the prophets concerning Him in all of the scriptures.
With Jesus it was always the scriptures, have you not read as He said many times or it is written. It's always been and still is all about scripture.It was that important to the word made flesh.
The RCC has morphed many times and the ammount of heresy is staggering
@joeforHistruth - The word πασαις ("all") is omitted from Luke 24:27 in Codex Sinaiticus (א) and Codex Bezae (D). Thus, Luke 24:27b reads, "he was expounding to them in all those writings (i.e., Torah and Prophets) the things concerning himself."
The word "scriptures" has become standard terminology among English speakers denoting canonical writings. This denotation never existed in 1st century Palestine. The word translated "scriptures" is γραφαις (graphais). This word simply means "writings."
@joeforHistruth - No, not "the writings", but "those writings", i.e. the Torah and Prophets from which Jesus was expounding messianic revelation. (Luke 24:27)
These communities also used writings later omitted from the Christian canon.
@HeroOfChristArchives My whole point was the scripture is what Christ was using. It's meaningless to me if they didnt say scripture then, most say that in our time. I was pointing that out because the RCC says tradition all the time to justify their false teaching. When Jesus was saying "have you not read" or "it is written". It's all about the scripture.
@joeforHistruth - The English word "scripture" ultimately derives from Latin "scriptum" which simply means "something written." There existed no "canon of scripture" in Jesus' day. Also, the Jews considered sacred their oral traditions. They did not adhere to anything resembling the recent Protestant doctrine of "sola scriptura." The Apostolic Church never adhered to any such doctrine, either.
@HeroOfChristArchives Again we have the word of God contained in the bible(scriptures). What God says is what matters. The 'tradition' of the RCC contradicts the word of God.
They did have scriputure in that time, Jesus and the Apostles refered to them many times.
They did not adhere to anything resembling sola scriptura. Thats interesting, you know this how? Were you there? Because when I read the New Testament they talk about the scripture plenty.
Sola scriptura is a Protestant dogma invented during the Reformation. James White, an adherent of this unbiblical dogma, confesses in this video that the dogma was not practiced by Jesus or the apostles.
@joeforHistruth said: "When I read the NT, they talk about the scripture plenty."
@HeroOfChristArchives Again Jesus said "have you not read" or "it is written" many times.
The Apostolic Church never adhered to any such doctrine, really? When I read the N.T. it has plenty to say about the word of God and how important it is. You almost sound dismissive about it, like scripture wasn't or isn't very important. The fact is, RCC tradition contradicts scripture(Gods word), therefore it is false and the RCC is another false religion deceiving millions.
@HeroOfChristArchives There were scriptures, i never said canon. Yes revelation did cease, the canon is closed.
Some RCC contradict? Most contradict the bible. I'm talking heresy. Comoaring that to sola scriptura is laughable, there is no comparison. There is so much from the RCC that contradicts the word of God.
As Christ said, "have you not read", "it is written" , the RCC must not have read those. They just made it up as they went, not giving a rip about the bible.
@HeroOfChristArchives To start, calling Mary the All Holy One is blasphemous for sure. this contradicts scripture and gives Mary a name that would only belong to God. There is much more.
@joeforHistruth - Matthew 16:17-19 proves that the Church is a divinely ordained institution. God operates through His Church, thereby giving necessary revelation. Are you insisting that God is dormant, inactive, and uncommunicative, having abandoned His Church until Christ's return?
@HeroOfChristArchives Absolutely divinely ordained, but the canon is closed. No God is not still speaking. He has given us everything we need to know in His Holy word. Abandoned? Not at all, His Holy Spirit empowers us, we are sealed with, and gives us understanding of His word. He leads us and guides us as well, but He has said all He needs to say in His word.
@joeforHistruth said: "(God gave) us everything we need to know in (the bible)" ✖
@joeforHistruth said: "(God) has said all He needs to say in (the bible)" ✖
You're limiting divine revelation to a corpus of writings completed ca. 100 AD. You are effectively muzzling God, asserting that He has ceased communicating with HIS Church. This concept is neither biblical, nor is it plausible!
@joeforHistruth said: "God is communicating with His church through His all-sufficient word, contained in the bible"
Which church? Which canon? Which bible? What's this about 'all-sufficiency'? You're again regurgitating your 'sola scriptura' heresy which, as I've heretofore exposed, is utterly unbiblical.
Let me know when you're prepared to unmuzzle the mouth of God.
"Man will not live (ζησεται = future tense) by bread alone, but by
every word proceeding from the mouth of God." (Matthew 4:4)
@HeroOfChristArchives The Church of Christ, those who have repented and by faith alone, in Christ alone, are saved by Gods grace alone, these are justified and are the ones who make up the Church, Gods elect.
Yes the scriptures are sufficient. The bible, not with the Apocrypha.
You exposed nothing of the sort.
Absolutley Matt. 4:4, future tense, great. Of course all of the God-breathed scripture had not been given yet when Christ said that. But now we have all of His word, in the bible.
@joeforHistruth said: "That Church of Christ, those who have repented and by faith alone, in Christ alone, are saved by God's grace alone, these are justified and are the ones who make up the Church, God's elect."
Oh really? This, according to YouTube user joeforHistruth alone? #LOL
@joeforHistruth - By your statements, you're actually making Jesus out to be a liar when asserting that "God is not still speaking." Are you insisting that man SHOULD live by bread alone, and not by every word proceeding from the mouth of God?
@joeforHistruth asked: "What true Church is God still speaking through then?"
Nice straw man. It is written that MAN will live by every word proceeding from the mouth of God, not that "the church" will live by every word proceeding from the mouth of God.
@HeroOfChristArchives Does future tense means it keeps going on and on? Or when Jesus said it the rest of God-breathed scripture was not given. It has now been given. We have Gods word, the bible, for every man to live by. There is no straw man. I would add every man should live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God, He could not have said it any other way, but lost sinners will not, only those that belong to Him, Christians, will actually live by His word.
@joeforHistruth asked: "Does future tense mean it keeps going on and on?"
The Greek construction implies that, for as long as words proceed forth from the mouth of the eternal God (i.e., eternally), man will live by them, not by bread alone.
@joeforHistruth said: "We have God's word, the bible, for every man to live by."
Yet, the bible is not 'all-sufficient', nor the 'sole' source of divine revelation.
@joeforHistruth said: "...live by every word... from the mouth of God"
If you were of God's elect, you would know His words. But since you have thought to muzzle the mouth of God, and have rejected His Spirit, you cannot know God's words.
@HeroOfChristArchives What is God saying? Do these elect you speak of belong to or are a member of a specific denomination or do they have a specific name?
I know without a doubt I am Gods elect, I know in whom I have believed, I know who has saved me, so spare me the cult like talk. I have not rejected Christ or the Holy Spirit. I do reject vehemetly those that say they hear from God extra biblical revelation when they haven't. And call it the word of God.
Are you likening the Holy Spirit of God to a cult leader?
"For to one is given via the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge per the same Spirit; but to another, faith by the same Spirit; to another, gifts of healing by the one Spirit; to another, the working of miracles; to another, prophecy; to another, the discernment of spirits; to another, native languages; to another, the interpretation of languages."
Of course the whole gist of our comments were hearing from God outside of His written word, which is contained in the bible. All Christians hear from God when they're reading His word, but no one is getting new revelation. Of course you knew what I meant since I've already said it in other comments.
So answer my questions about these elect you are refering? You keep ignoring it.
@joeforHistruth said: "....no one is getting new revelation."
According to what/whom? Certainly not according to the Bible! The fallacy you're committing is recasting the written words to conform to your tendentious, biblically unfounded, dogmatic prepossession. You're intimating Joe's truth, not God's truth. Obviously, the myriad of biblical passages I've hitherto cited totally annihilates your unsustainable suspicion that "God is not still speaking," as if the Creator of All could be muzzled!
You showed some good passages, they do not prove God is still speaking, other than through His word.
Am I saying God could not speak if He wanted, absolutely no, He definately could. What I am saying is He has chosen to speak through His Apostels/Prophets to give us His word, the bible. The canon is closed.
And I guess your to scared to name a church that these elect attend. Because if ite the false RCC than you have some problems.
@joeforHistruth said: "And I guess you're too scared to name a church that these elect attend. Because if it's the false RCC, then you have some problems."
The elect of God aren't limited to any single Christian denomination, just as they're not limited to any single ethnicity, nationality, culture or language, as it is written:
"You redeemed us to God in your blood, out of every race, and language, and people, and ethnos; and you made us a kingdom of priests unto our God." (Revelation 5:9-10)
@HeroOfChristArchives I"The elect of God aren't limited to any single Christian denomination, just as they're not limited to any single ethnicity, nationality, culture or language, as it is written:"
@joeforHistruth Look at the absurdity of the Charismatic movement, they say they hear from God, but the things they say do not line up with scripture.
Then there are the cults, JW's and Mormons, they have built their whole false system on people claiming they heard new revelation from God. Then of course there is the RCC(which I would call cult like), they have many false heretical teachings, all from God they say. I think not.
Tradition, Is inspired by the Holy Spirit, to the successors of the Aposotles, It is the Word of God for the Priest to preserve, expound, and spread faithfully abroad by their teaching. their you have it take it or leave it. Tradition and Scripture go hand in hand
@myladyschild That's fair. The principles of Sola Scriptura can be found in 1 Cor. 4:6; the Bereans compared what Paul was saying to the Scriptures in Acts 17:11; Jesus asked if people had ever read the Scriptures in Matthew 21:42; Apollos refuted from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ in Acts 18:28; 2 Tim 3:15-17 shows that we can be thoroughly equipped by the Scriptures.
@zipper778 Cor 4;6 is one of the most confusing passages in scripture , but it does not say scripture alone Paul was saying do not be arrogant. Acts 17;11they searched the scriptures it does not mean scripture alone none of these passages say what you say they mean . acts 20;7 This verse gives us a glimpse of Christian worship on Sunday Oral Tradition. There are to many passages in the bible that say not by scripture alone. by the way who gave you the authority to interpret the Bible
@zipper778 Tradition, infant baptism, the Trinity, Inerrancy of the bible, Purgatory. Examples of Tradition was believed by early church fathers. How could you believe that the 1st 1500 years of the church taught lies, and still be Christian. in your logic all the church fathers are in hell. 1500 years of people going to hell despite the fact that early Christians died for their faith.
@myladyschild I suggest that you re-read those verses again. They are easy to understand, and they clearly show that we must have a standard which is above the Apostles, Scripture. I don't understand how you believe that I think the Christian church has been wrong for 1500 years. I never said that because I don't believe that the church has to be perfect. Only Jesus Christ is. I praise Him for His wonderful gift of Salvation.
@zipper778 I suggest you read those verses again, if they are so easy to understand why don't you understand them ask yourself this if the church was right for 1500 years( the Catholic church) then they ca not be wrong now Remember not one doctrine of the churched has been changed in 2000 years
@myladyschild Maybe you need to be more objective with church history. Even Cardinal Newman recognized that a LOT has changed in the past 2000 years. NO ONE believed that the pope could be infallible (not talking about impeccable) before 1870, torture was papally approved for about 600-700 years, transubstatiation was not believed by the early church, Marian doctrines have RADICALLY changed. It is an absolute denial of history to believe that the RCC has never changed.
Show the rest of the clip, because I am willing to bet that Mr. White afterwards has more to say about that. The apostles could couldn't practice sola scriptura because it hadn't been written yet. The same goes for sola ecclesia because the Church hadn't been established like it is today either. The apostles practiced the word of God straight from the author, just as the Bible is the living word of God, not the Church.
I do not know what Mr. White beieves and am not defending him at all. However I must point out that if the same question was of Catholic traditions the answer also would be no. Did the people in Jesus' day practice scripture plus Catholic traditions? NO! Did thr Apostles practice scripture plus Catholic tradition? NO!. Was the ealy church called Catholic? NO!
@ttsqas so then brethren, hold on and stand firm to TRADITIONS which you were taught whether by word of mouth or by letter from us 2 Thessalonians 2;15
@myladyschild Sorry, that misquoting of scripture might work with others but not with me. Paul wrote that the church was to hold on to "stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle". Paul said nothing about "word of mouth" you and many from your sect add "of mouth". Paul and the Apostles directly taught the 1st century church what traditions they were to keep since they were alive to do so.
@myladyschild If your twisted version of what Paul wrote was correct then that would mean that the 1st century was instructed to hold to traditions only from the Apostles letters and not their in person oral teaching, since you link "word" to word of mouth (which is always at the least 2nd hand). The word "us" applies to the Apostles spoken words and their written ones.
@ByzantineCrusader This is the false gospel that you preach, " if your Church has no Cross on top, has no icons, has no candles, has no frankensense, has no preists that go by NOT THEIR OWN STANDARDS, has preists that "don't need to go by a dress code such as wearing robes", etc., then it is no Church, no offense, it's a restroom."
Straight from Satan, not ever taught by the Apostles. You are blind and decieved I continue to pray that God will save you.
@ttsqas Yes indeed what you say about yourself and your deniel of that the Church was Catholic is true. "This is an excellent example of a perverted gospel which Paul warned of." He warned of those who would pervert the gospel in all it's works and aspects. Whether it was for a slight and minute detail of the smallest interpretation of it, to those who would change the very text of it. And Protestants, and Moslems, and you, fall right in. Any part of the Gospel you pervert, oral or written.
@ByzantineCrusader 4For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
5For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.
6If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained.
@ByzantineCrusader Take note that Paul says that even when in later times some leave the faith and believe and teach heresies the leader was to do what? "put the brethren in REMEMBERANCE of these things,
Show me where he said give the church a name. Show me where he authorized adding new traditions, show me!
@ByzantineCrusader 2And THE THINGS THOU HAST HEARD OF ME among many witnesses, >THE SAME< commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.
16Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee
@ttsqas So, if you were to live back then, and tell the ones who serve Ignatius that they are wrong, well guess what, Ignaitus has been TOUCHED and APPROVED by the Apostles, and the Apostles will tell you that you are and were wrong. So, that is how it is exactly to this day. And if you were to persist back then, then the Apostles themselves, would excommunicate you. So that is the TRUTH of this all. You speak for the Apostles that which they have not spoken or written, and you add to it.
@ByzantineCrusader If you have a problem with "it is written" then make sure you complain to Jesus Christ when you stand before him. I pray that he opens your eyes before that day.
@ttsqas So while you and everyone else who differs from you, and millions of others "all got it right", ONE OF THEM has the crown, that is the SOURCE and ONE OF THEM is REAL. So where that ONE is REAL, all others are just fallen, and shattered to peices. So while everyone claims to be a Christian, ONE OF THEM must be correct. So while everyone says this or that, ONE OF THEM, has been physically touched and approved by the Very Apostles.
@ttsqas "mine and the true church's is" So called "spiritually"? Well, mine too. AND PHYSICALLY. While you have this DELUSIONAL bridge, we have NO GAPS. So while YOU THINK that you are in relationship with Christ, GOD has a guide standing RIGHT HERE ON EARTH that will POINT YOU TO HIIM. So while YOU think that all that is "not needed", you don't just simply stop there. So there is the problem. You attack those that DO NEED the Marvelous Fruits of the small musturd seed, like the Bible.
@ttsqas and the New Seed is there. So it's time for you to look at the large and beutiful tree that has been grown from the seed. It's there, and the gates of hell WILL NOT Prevail, and will NEVER Prevail.
@ttsqas Because the seed that was planted 2000 years ago, continues to grow and develop, and is fully preached, and is at the same time THAT TRUE CHURCH that was been always "the pillar and foundation of Truth" of ALL TRUTH, and that true Church that has been "the faith delivered unto the saints ONCE AND FOR ALL", and so it's time for you to realize that no Martin Luther, or you Yourself, can put a NEW Seed in it's place. Because the NEW Seed has already been planted 2000 years ago,
@ttsqas Our "sect" is founded by Jesus Christ himself, so if you want to still persist in calling that a "sect" then it's all on you. But our Church, like a small musturd seed, far outgrew itself, and is far too large, to be still considered a "sect", it's time for you to open your eyes, and see the truth of how large and prosporous a little musturd seed planted by Christ Himself has grown. Now, It's TIME for you, to realize that a NEW "mustard seed" is NOT NEEDED anymore to plant,
@ttsqas You KNOW that the Catholic Church is NOT a Sect, and YOU KNOW that you are acting like YOUR OWN SECT, so " it is time for you to stop lying to yourself and expecting others to accept the lies that you have." It's really time for you to come and join the ark, and stop expecting others to pull themselves away from the arc, just because you did so. It's time for you to get in the right track, and not pull others way from it, to a LOST TRACK, so it's really TIME FOR YOU.
@ByzantineCrusader Show me your proof that Paul authorized those given Apostolic auhority to teach anything other than what was already established! Paul said THE SAME referring to THE THINGS THOU HAST HEARD OF ME. So Timothy was to committ what he heard from the Apostles which is what your sect's leaders have failed to do.
@ttsqas "No it is time for you to stop lying to yourself and expecting others to accept the lies that you have. " You yourself KNOW that the Church was Catholic, you KNOW that Pauls message was UNIVERSAL, you KNOW that Romans says "for he is not a jew which is one outwardly, but he is a jew which is one inwardly" You KNOW that Romans says "for they are not all Israel, that are of Israel", so YOU that Romans says" for there is neither Jew nor Gentile", so You KNOW that the Church was CATHOLIC
@ttsqas So I am not saying God has to do anything. But what I find is that those who are in need of God's forgiveness, are those who say that the Earth was 6 LITERAL DAYS because God HAS TO HAVE HAD IT that way. So I would advise you to redirect your prayers on those that need them. Because they speak for God and God doesn't approve or employ his seal of approval for them. So, you should redirect your prayers to those that do such foolish things, and go against Truth.
@ttsqas The Holy Spirit did leave something behind, like Scriptures, and the written records of collectively of other Church Fathers, to POINT TO HIS TRUTH. So God did not even have to write the Bible, and he didn't. He left it for men to write it down. So the same men that wrote down the Bible, spoke and said, and DID other things as well. God did not HAVE TO have had the Apostles themselves write it down, it could've been finished by a scribe or someone even after them.
@ttsqas About this offensive comment:"That is your ignorant conclusion, and I pray that God will forgive your foolish suggestion that he has to record the CONTINUATION of his Church because you think he should. Where did God ever promise to record the history of the church? Such thinking is from one source; the devil." First of all, I never said that he HAS to. God did not HAVE to Write the Scriptures down, even. So he Doesn't HAVE TO do anything that he dosn't want to.
@ttsqas Otherwise, if you don't substantiate your claims to TRUTH, then all what you've said, and all Protestants put together are in mere speculation and opinion, and they will have to say that "God told them so" and "they are all prophets" which they do. But if that's the case, then as "prophets" their opinions should be further scripture, but it's not. So all in all, it's speculation, speculation, speculation, and RESISTANCE to the TRUTH.
@ttsqas "Historians also say that there is very little if any proof in Egyptian history of Israeal captivity...." Well, THAT'S IRRELEVANT. The fact of the matter is, that Christ came later, and the later the times, the more closer it is to us, and the more abudant sources there are out there for us. So whether or not the earlier sources lack evidence, the fact is that in the later sources, THERE ARE MORE EVIDENCES. And to consolidate this debate, u have to equal out the wieght of in ur side
@ttsqas "The Apostolic traditions did not include calling the church the Catholic church and I will do what the Apostle Paul said to do and standfast, hold to, and continue in what they taught the 1st century church. " Okay, it's all nice, but YOU'RE NOT in the 1st Century. You're in the 21st Century. The Apostles works obviously need to be interpreted CORRECTLY from the CORRECT LENSES. And the Tradition with 2000 years of knowledge does it the best.
@ttsqas Good you've read Eusibius. " also remind you that no historic text can undo the Apostles oral or written words. " THEY DON'T. So now, use Eusibius to establish the truth of what you've said, because you can't use Scriptures to establish it, that it, you're not able to. Because I can use Scriptures to more than refute your calims, so throwing scripture verses back and forth does not lead to anywhere. Now, see which Church is the HISTORICAL Church, on SECONDARY things.
@ttsqas The Word Universal or CATHOLIC doesn't have to be in the Bible, for the Church to be called that. The CHURCH IS UNIVERSAL. IT's Catholic. The Church IS HOLY. The Church is ONE. THe CHURCH IS APOSTOLIC. These are the things that MAKE THE CHURCH what they are. 1. One 2. Holy 3. Catholic 4. Apostolic they MAKE THE CHURCH what it is. Just like Jesus being God makes Him who He is. These are components of the Church, this is what the Church IS. The word Catholic MEANS Universal.
@ttsqas So what you've said right here: "You can spin it any way you like but your Catholic ancestors added to what the Apostles established in the 1st century not conintued in it." Is completely unfounded, and if I refuted this allegation, then it's slander. All it comes down to is name calling, and that is the MEANING of the NAME, and that will be easy to Proove. THe CATHOLIC CHURCH IS CALLED THE CHURCH. So I don't see what and were you have a problem with that.
@ttsqas These things, like "prayer to saints" even though it's not, r not only brought up in the circles of Christianity, but they r brought up in the circles of Islam as well, &etc. So it's overall foriegn to Christian Traditions, because Christianity seems more to go ourway, i.e. asking saints to pray for u,& icons & trinity & etc., rather than going the other way around. As u hopefully noticed, Uniterianism can never square well with Christianity. It works better with Judaism or Islam, etc
@ttsqas And the Moslems came up with this argument as well. So what's your point? There are many things that the Moslems said that are Idolatry 800-900 years before the Protestants did. In the matter of fact, it will be noteworthy to read in wekipedia about Protestantism and Protestantism and Islam, where it gives that link in the article of Protestantism. Abhorrance of saints, and iconoclasm are nothing new, so what's your point?
@ttsqas "Saying that we should pray to Mary or other deceased Christians is not defining what the Apostles taught because as you well know they did not teach it." And neither does the Eastern Orthodox Church on in this case the Roman Catholic Church, so what's your point? You are arguing in circles and attacking a strawman. But asking someone to Pray for you is not a sin, even if you ask the rightous ones who died i.e. Saints, and etc., since God is the God of the Living and not the Dead.
@ttsqas to corrections, and to what you might proove where I misrepresented my church here or there. But even if that's the case, I've read the Bibe on my own 4 whole times, and so, this is where my conclusions come and fit like a glove with that of the Church, and Believe me, parts of my conclusions took time to atleast REALIZE where the Church truly stands. So, it's not like I presupposed everything, I came to my conclusions, because I was privy to receiving more than what you received.
@ttsqas "the Apostles had already taught. Saying that the Church now has to be called the Catholic church is not defining anything it is adding a tradition not from the Apostles." Now, this is clearly your ADDITIONS to the text of the Scriptures and to Apostolic Traditions, and they come from OUTSIDE the Church. Everything that you've said in all your discussions was an ADDITION and based on NO authority, so on what do you add these things? Atleast I am representing something, and am open...
@ttsqas & u already know how I view it "the gates of hell will not prevail against it(the Church)", so my last statement shouldn't be unclear to u. But u make a decision to somehow rely & presuppose on the fact that the conclusion of revelation closes in the death of the last Author-Apostle of the NT, & so, even if they did historically say anything else, all this wouldn't matter to u. So when will you get beyond the limits of scripture, because it's clear that it doesn't cover EVERYTHING.
@ttsqas So it's clear, that you don't want to trust ignatius on his decisions(when it comes to the universality, not his private opinions), and that seems to be very clear to me. Because the moment you trust Ignatius, then you'll have to trust his successors, and etc., and on and on and on it goes, and then you'll see that there is no Broken Chain. And then you'll see that there was not a time where something has become interrupted to the point where the "gates of hell prevailed"
@ttsqas That's why these words have never been added to the Scriptures when we continously held true to the Scriptures for the past 1500 years before the Protestants came along. And if you want to say that St. Constantine corrupted the Church, well then, that supposedly should have been in 325AD, and the Canon was ESTABLISHED in 381A.D so, if that's the case, then you should go back and see what was "truly" written by the apostles themselves. And what's the "true" canon, or "scripture"
@ttsqas But that doesn't mean that human being's PRIVATE Opinions, become all of a sudden CATHOLIC. It only means that human's private opinions are so harmoniously distinct, from the Collective and In Communion Opinions that are affirmed and approved and guided overall by the Holy Spirit. So, has the New Testament Church from it's very beginning always been Universal(Catholic), YES. The word "catholic" just like the word "trinity" is NOT neccessary for US, to have them in the Scriptures.
@ttsqas Was that not the Same HOLY SPIRIT that guarded the Scriptures, that continues to guide THAT CHURCH which guards and decides everything else? Or did the Holy Spirit do a "half ass" job, and just preserve the Scriptures but allowed the rest of the Church to get corrupted? You must make your answer on that. Did God allow his Church to be corrupted? Well, the answer is NO. Because collectively the Church is the Body of Christ. Will there be human private opinions, & etc., well always.
@ttsqas will be, did Ignatuis or anyone after the Ignatius, and 1500 years before the Protestants, add the word Catholic into the Scriptures? And the answer is NO. So, if the Church seemed credible and praise worthy to hand down the Scriptures, and to preserve them, and to guard them from corruption and to canonize that which was truly Scripture from when it was written and handed down, then why is it not credible and maintaining the same key essentials to Holy Tradition?
@ByzantineCrusader “we can say (according to your logic) that Scriptures when they were written did not have spacing between words, did not have lower case letters, John did not write John 7:53-8:11, Mark did not write Mark 16:8-20, there was no Capter and Verse division, there was no punctuation marks, so everything that was added later on to the text of the Bible, has been ADDED to the Scriptures, and they were not there to begin with. “
@ttsqas Did the Church close and seal at the death of the last apostle? NO. And if you think it's so, then how so, and where is your PROOF? As I have said continuously, all the proofs and all the evidences, side to the favor of OUR CHURCH. And OUR CHURCH is Proven to be the Historical Church. Now whether one is ROMAN Catholic, or Oriental Ortodox or etc, they are still Christians and HISTORICAL Christians in that regard. So the overall question that should clarify everything to you...
@ByzantineCrusader "You said: The Apostles did not call the church the Catholic(in it's PRECISE and EXACT usage of the EXACT WORD:Catholic) church so this is not Apostolic tradition pure and simple."
I said that the Apostles did not call the church the Catholic church PERIOD! When you have to add words like (in it's PRECISE and EXACT usage of the EXACT WORD:Catholic) that is aways a sign that you about to start twisting the truth.
@ttsqas Did Ignatius add anything? The answer to that question is a pure and simple NO. Did he have his own private opinions like everyone else, YES. But did he add them to the Church, NO. But did Jesus give the Apostles some authority? Yes. And did the Apostles hand down the same kind of authority to their immediate successors that they received from Jesus Christ as commissioned? YES.&so what kind of authority was that? Well, Matt.18:18 says about the Church, WHATSOEVER ye shall bind...
@ttsqas Same with learning a different subject, say a foreign launguage and the grammer, you're not going to have the time to question everything on your own, when you are in the process of IMMEDIATE Learning, so you just have to submit to those who know more in that area, and later on it will make more sense, when you do studies and research on your own. But if people were to say, "I don't need a teacher because it goes against the teachers who wrote this textbook", well, then that's a presup.
@ttsqas conclusions from here or there, based on their limited knowledge and decisions, that they come to regret later on, when they aquire a whole lot more knowledge. It's like when I saw that the Orthodox Church has as their CENTRAL Book the FOUR Gospels, and not the whole Bible, and I wondered why, but I accepted it because it somehow made sense, and later on it made all the more sense. And it made all the more sense, because I didn't resist step one. I just took it for what it was.
@ttsqas So you might as well just keep on picking and choosing which parts or interpretations you like here, or which parts or interpretations you like there, but God has His own standards, and men have theirs. Whether or not your standards will comply with God's standards, well, only GOD KNOWS. I am not going to decide or judge for you. But you're still resisting something, It's not like I am not open to the Truth, I never said reform is all that of a bad thing, it's when people make...
@ttsqas "Paul did not say hold to traditions not from us as long as they happen within the 1st hundred years after we Apostles have passed on. " You have never PROOVED your point. If you want to challenge the Credibility of the Church, or the Apostles or of Jesus Christ himself, well, to the believers, the burden of proof is on you, Because all of the evidence points to our favor. And you're eithere a "catholic" or a "protestant" whether you like it or not.
@ttsqas So why trust something that's been in the hands of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches this whole time, 1500 years before Protestantism came about, and 2000 years before YOUR Church came into being? Why trust the New Testament Written Scriptures that is clearly and historically proven of coming AFTER the TRUE Church, but BEFORE the false Churches that place themselves under it? I don't see to what avail will you still keep trusting Scriptures, if you were to realize the logic behind it
@ttsqas So if for example a passages said GODISNOWHERE and the Catholics have been saying it for 1500 years that this passage would have read "God is now here" and there was all this tradition[s] and sources backing everysingle thing up on this, someone along the years 1600-1700 will come and say that it really says "God is nowhere" and their interpretation is correct because everyone else is "just men" right? That's the kind of logic that you would have to employ. SO why won't you?
@ttsqas Lining your logic up with Scriptures, we can say (according to your logic) that Scriptures when they were written did not have spacing between words, did not have lower case letters, John did not write John 7:53-8:11, Mark did not write Mark 16:8-20, there was no Capter and Verse division, there was no punctuation marks, so everything that was added later on to the text of the Bible, has been ADDED to the Scriptures, and they were not there to begin with. So it goes on even further...
@ttsqas Here, let me nail this in to your logic, so that you'll get it the right way, I'll use Scripture and Tradition: You said: The Apostles did not call the church the Catholic(in it's PRECISE and EXACT usage of the EXACT WORD:Catholic) church so this is not Apostolic tradition pure and simple.
It was clear and obvious that the CHURCH was the [Catholic] Church. As time went by everyone started claiming they were the Church, so a Definition was needed. Now, lining this up with....
@ttsqas Who WILL BE the Heretic according to your opinion? Who is the Heretic that supposedly starte this lie, did I give you the answer? Will you say it's Ignatius that started this "lie" about the Church is Catholic, and he was soo vicious and greedy and power hungry that he gave his life for the Church and was Martyred to go to heaven? The Student of John the Apostle? Patriarch of Antioch? Who is the heretic?
@ttsqas "I meant to say God did not choose Josephus to establish the church he chose the Apostles." And did God choose Ignatius? Because the Apostles chose him to succeed them. And they chose Clement and Linus as well. So did God choose them or not? And back to the same question, or whether you beleive in Sola Scriptura or not, are you really a Protestant or not? And if not, then WHY DO YOU PROTEST? Only "Protestants" PROTEST. What is in it for you to PROTEST?
@ByzantineCrusader Only the most evil and deceitful person would compare punctuation marks to religious traditions. I thought you were intelligent but apparently I was mistaken. I thought you had some integrity but obviously I was mistaken. There is no comparison to adding punctuation marks to a text and adding entire words which change the meaning of the text. Just how ignorant are you?
@ByzantineCrusader Do I need to get my 10 year old nephew to explain to you the difference between saying that the true Church has to be called the Catholic church when the Apostles never left such a tradition and placing punctuation marks in the translated scriptures where needed? Please tell me you are only pretending to be so ignorant!
This has been flagged as spam show
For important truths on how the Bible proves the teachings of traditional Catholic faith, its necessity for salvation, proof of creation and miracles, as well as other important spiritual and secular issues, please visit channel: MHFM1.
8marioch 2 months ago
The Catholic Church came first, then the Bible. The Bible wasn't even compiled until the Council of Rome in 382, and printing presses weren't invented until 1440. If protestants really think that the Bible is the only way for salvation, then what about those poor souls for 1500 years who didn't have a Bible? Christ established an authority on earth to preserve His revelation and decide the Bible canon. This authority is the Holy Catholic Church.
MysticalCity 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MysticalCity Only Jesus saves, and true faith in Him alone leads to salvation."For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not a result of works so that no one may boast." ~ Ephesians
No salvation outside of the Christ for he is God.Through having true faith in God the "Poor Souls" had righteousness accredited to them ~Hebrews 11
JayElleist 3 months ago
@MysticalCity As for the Catholic Church coming before the written word then we must ask what was Jesus referring to when he rebuked the devil in the wilderness by saying "It is written"?
JayElleist 3 months ago
@JayElleist I am not trying to disregard the church and traditions, but they are not on the same level with the word of God, they are lower courts of authority. If we find error in the established system, according to what the Bible says, we are to eradicate it. The only reason we know what is right and wrong according to Christ is by reading His word and meditating on it.
JayElleist 3 months ago
@JayElleist The Word of God is not only written and that is the problem with the idea you present. The written word is confined to paper and cannot be the ultimate authority when people confuse the context or simply do not understand the words or cannot read. Thus why the scriptures themselves point to the fact that the church is the pillar & foundation of truth where the church is made up of BOTH oral and written traditions to serve equally together to form the deposit of faith.
catchzz 2 months ago
@JayElleist OT, The Catholic Church came before The NT was written.
Phil. 2:2 - St.Paul prays that Christians be of the same mind, of one accord. Yet there are 30,000 different "Protest"ant denominations?
1 Cor. 14:33 - God cannot be the author of the Protestant confusion. Only the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church claims and proves to be Christ's Church.
MysticalCity 3 months ago
@MysticalCity God is not the author of confusion, but can light have fellowship with darkness? Just because someone claims they are of Christ doesn't mean squat if they are claiming a gospel outside of the one that is in the Bible. Satan has many different versions of Jesus, but the real Jesus convicts men of sins and offers forgiveness for true repentance. The real Jesus says take up your cross and follow me, and that means follow HIM under threat of death.
JayElleist 3 months ago
@MysticalCity Separation from wickedness is the most Biblical act any true Christian will do.
JayElleist 3 months ago
Matt 18:15-17... You can not tell it to Scripture...
Yankeegator 4 months ago
At this point Ill let u have the notion the inspired canon is only 66 books. Ill even let u have the notion that God dropped the bible out of the sky to avoid u thinking the binding of scripture is a tradition of men. But I can go to the written Word of God your ONLY source of authority, & find that the church is the pillar/foundation of truth. What came first, the inspired canon or the church? I agree 100% w/ 2 Tim 3:16, but that doesnt say ONLY or ALONE or even define what books are scripture.
catchzz 6 months ago
That's a stupid question he is asking. The apostles such as Paul,John ect were still receiving direct revelations from Christ during their time. The full canon had not been fully written yet.
1Co 13:9-10 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
InTheSpirit12 9 months ago
@InTheSpirit12
Does Scripture say that once the canon is complete that Apostolic Tradition is no longer valid? Also, does it give us a list of books which constitutes the canon?
Mkvine 7 months ago
@Mkvine All the valid Apostolic Traditions are found in scripture alone. All others are just human traditions added by men. God gave us His inspired word the 66 books of the bible written by 40 different authors. Trust the word of God not men.
InTheSpirit12 7 months ago
@InTheSpirit12
Where does scripture say that?
Mkvine 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Mkvine I'll answer that as soon as you show me where in the bible does it say we are to pray to Mary.
InTheSpirit12 7 months ago
@Mkvine
Psalm118:8
It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.
InTheSpirit12 7 months ago
@InTheSpirit12
Wait... Where does that say that 1). Once the Canon is complete, Apostolic Tradition is no longer valid? 2). The list of the books that constitute the Canon? 3). All valid Apostolic Traditions are in the Bible "alone"?
Mkvine 7 months ago
@Mkvine
Why do contradict your claims & attack the bible? You say I said tradition is no longer valid. But then say that I said all valid tradition is in the bible. I guess you are confused, but hey, that's Roman Catholicism for you, its just one big paradox, right? :-)
InTheSpirit12 7 months ago
@InTheSpirit12
You said that "all" tradition is contained in the Bible, and previously you said all tradition is in the bible "alone." Those are your words - "all" and "alone." WHERE in the Bible does it say that? It's a very simple question. Also, please don't ignore my question on the Canon. WHERE in the bible does it list all the books of the Canon? You're ad hominem attack shows that you can't give an answer. You believe in one big paradox - sola scriptura is not taught in scripture! :-)
Mkvine 7 months ago
@Mkvine Matthew 15:3 And He answered and said to them, “Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?
Does any of the RCC traditions violate Gods law?
WHERE in the bible does it list all the books of the Canon? You can find a list of all the "inspired books" in the contexts section of the Protestant bible. :-)LOL!
InTheSpirit12 7 months ago
@InTheSpirit12
I find it very hard to take you seriously. You said that the list of the Canon is found in the "contexts section." Well, first of all, I think you mean "table of contents." Second, the table of contents is not inspired scripture. That was added by the publishers like the "American Bible Society," "Hendrickson Publishers" and many others. I find it sad that you have to go to the Publisher's addition rather than to a Scripture verse to validate your doctrine.
Mkvine 7 months ago
@InTheSpirit12
I agree with Matthew 15:3. I believe that any tradition that trangresses God's law is not valid. But does Scripture say ALL tradition is invalid? No. In fact, Scripture commands us to follow Apostolic tradition which does not "transgress" God's law. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 "So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter."
Mkvine 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Mkvine said "I believe that any tradition that trangresses God's law is not valid"
Okay, lets test just one of the RCC traditions. Let's take the worship of Mary and her being intercessor between God and man. What command does this violate? I say this breaks the 1st commandment & scripture verse 1 Timothy 2:5. Also, when one is bowing at the feet of a statue of her this is a clear violation of the 2nd commandment. This tradition I'm sure you will agree is not valid.
InTheSpirit12 7 months ago
@InTheSpirit12 Hello, I must point out that you LOLed at the end of your comment about the context section of the Protestant bible to find the list of inspired books. I sure hope that you were not serious. I am not going to belittle your intelligence so please tell me that was a joke.
The table of contents of any bible translation is not inspired. It was not written by any biblical authors.
catchzz 6 months ago
@catchzz Never said the table of context is inspired. But it will point you to the inspired word of God.
InTheSpirit12 6 months ago
@InTheSpirit12 Actually you very clearly answered the question presented to you about where in the bible does it list the inspired books & you said the contexts section which was not written by any inspired writers. The canon is a binding tradition thats not found anywhere within inspired text of scripture. You are using circular logic. You said all valid tradition is in the bible, now you admit that the table of contents is not inspired so where is the valid tradition showing inspired canon?
catchzz 6 months ago
@catchzz Nope, you misunderstood me. The context itself is not inspired. But it shows you the 66 inspired books of the bible and where to find them in the book.:-) Can you answer the question Mkvine could not answer. She agreed any tradition that violates Gods law is not valid. Do you agree with her statement?
InTheSpirit12 6 months ago
@InTheSpirit12 Whether that was your intention on answering the question or not then you still have not answered the question posied to you. Wheres the list of inspired books within the confines of inspired scripture alone. I believe youre now covering your tracks for giving such an off-the-wall answer to the original question. If your def of sola scriptura is scripture is the only infallible rule of faith, then you need to answer that otherwise you are cutting yourself off @ the branch you sit.
catchzz 6 months ago
@catchzz I believe the 66 books to be the infallible inspired word of God. I believe you are down playing God's word for the commandments of men. I could be wrong. Again, if tradition violates Gods commands is it a valid tradition or not?
InTheSpirit12 6 months ago
@InTheSpirit12 We can talk about traditions but first you need to answer the question that was presented to you & you gave a foolish answer. If scripture is the only infallible rule of faith then where in the confines of inspired scripture is the infallible list of books to uphold your infallible truth? Using circular logic will not go anywhere so if thats how you want to converse, we might as well be playing chicken & the egg. Im not downplaying Gods word whatsoever, Im asking a legit question.
catchzz 6 months ago
@catchzz
Sorry, but the fact that the bible does not have a specific list of the inspired books does not prove that they are not inspired writings. Nor does it disprove Sola Scriptura. But nonetheless proceed with your argument.
InTheSpirit12 6 months ago
@InTheSpirit I can only laugh @ the sheer paradox of your answer! Im reminded of the parable of 2 builders. You built your foundation on sand. Thanks for admitting you cannnot use scripture alone as the infallible truth. As I stated earlier in response to your question if you go back & look- "The canon is a binding tradition thats not found anywhere within inspired text of scripture." Therefore how did the inspired books become bound? Are you infallibably sure the canon of the bible's correct?
catchzz 6 months ago
@catchzz Again you proceed to attack Gods word by saying one who builds his foundation on the word of God is building on sand. Is not Jesus the Word as Jn 1:1 says? What traditions are not found in scripture that we ought to be bound to?
InTheSpirit12 6 months ago
@InTheSpirit12 Tell me where I attacked Gods word by proving it took extra-biblical traditions to determine inspired works? Even you admitted it took extra-biblical traditions even though you first said all traditions are found in inspired works. Is His word confined to paper or is it alive & well? You made a caricature of building a foundation on sand. If I am going to believe an infallible truth, I should logically know that the foundation of that infallible truth is infallibly true, right?
catchzz 6 months ago
@catchzz Their is a reason God had His word written. Jesus warned us not to let tradition nullify His written word. The RCC has the same problem the Pharisees had, they went beyond what is written and were being bound by the traditions of men.
InTheSpirit12 6 months ago
@InTheSpirit12 So youre saying Gods word is confined only to paper? Do you really think that all of the division in protestantism is not the result of sola scriptura? Basically youre telling me that the extra-biblical tradition of determining inspired canon is a tradition of men. What goods a book you call infallible then? You ask "What traditions are not found in scripture that we ought to be bound to?" How many times have I answered this to you, inspired canon! Stay away from circular logic.
catchzz 6 months ago
@catchzz The bible alone is the word of God. There are no new revelations coming to us today, the canon is closed.
"What goods a book you call infallible then?"
2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
How did we come up with the inspired word of God we have today? Not by mans tradition, but rather by Gods providence.
InTheSpirit12 6 months ago
Watch the whole debate, Dr. White won.
Itrytotestify 9 months ago
You won't ever see an evangelical pastor kissing the Koran.
joeforHistruth 10 months ago
What did Christ say on the road to Emmaus? Luke 24:25-27. First they were divinelnot allowed to see that it was Jesus walking with them. Then He showed them from Moses and all of the prophets concerning Him in all of the scriptures.
With Jesus it was always the scriptures, have you not read as He said many times or it is written. It's always been and still is all about scripture.It was that important to the word made flesh.
The RCC has morphed many times and the ammount of heresy is staggering
joeforHistruth 10 months ago
@joeforHistruth - The word πασαις ("all") is omitted from Luke 24:27 in Codex Sinaiticus (א) and Codex Bezae (D). Thus, Luke 24:27b reads, "he was expounding to them in all those writings (i.e., Torah and Prophets) the things concerning himself."
The word "scriptures" has become standard terminology among English speakers denoting canonical writings. This denotation never existed in 1st century Palestine. The word translated "scriptures" is γραφαις (graphais). This word simply means "writings."
HeroOfChristArchives 10 months ago
@HeroOfChristArchives That is my point, the writings. What was written.
I would consider scriptures writings.
joeforHistruth 10 months ago
@joeforHistruth - No, not "the writings", but "those writings", i.e. the Torah and Prophets from which Jesus was expounding messianic revelation. (Luke 24:27)
These communities also used writings later omitted from the Christian canon.
HeroOfChristArchives 10 months ago
@HeroOfChristArchives Exactly
joeforHistruth 10 months ago
@HeroOfChristArchives My whole point was the scripture is what Christ was using. It's meaningless to me if they didnt say scripture then, most say that in our time. I was pointing that out because the RCC says tradition all the time to justify their false teaching. When Jesus was saying "have you not read" or "it is written". It's all about the scripture.
joeforHistruth 10 months ago
Comment removed
HeroOfChristArchives 10 months ago
@joeforHistruth - The English word "scripture" ultimately derives from Latin "scriptum" which simply means "something written." There existed no "canon of scripture" in Jesus' day. Also, the Jews considered sacred their oral traditions. They did not adhere to anything resembling the recent Protestant doctrine of "sola scriptura." The Apostolic Church never adhered to any such doctrine, either.
HeroOfChristArchives 10 months ago
@HeroOfChristArchives Again we have the word of God contained in the bible(scriptures). What God says is what matters. The 'tradition' of the RCC contradicts the word of God.
They did have scriputure in that time, Jesus and the Apostles refered to them many times.
They did not adhere to anything resembling sola scriptura. Thats interesting, you know this how? Were you there? Because when I read the New Testament they talk about the scripture plenty.
joeforHistruth 10 months ago
@joeforHistruth said: "They did have scripture in that time...."
Of course they did. Yet, they never adhered to "scripture alone."
@joeforHistruth said: "You know this how?"
Sola scriptura is a Protestant dogma invented during the Reformation. James White, an adherent of this unbiblical dogma, confesses in this video that the dogma was not practiced by Jesus or the apostles.
@joeforHistruth said: "When I read the NT, they talk about the scripture plenty."
Sure, but never "scripture alone."
HeroOfChristArchives 10 months ago
@HeroOfChristArchives Again Jesus said "have you not read" or "it is written" many times.
The Apostolic Church never adhered to any such doctrine, really? When I read the N.T. it has plenty to say about the word of God and how important it is. You almost sound dismissive about it, like scripture wasn't or isn't very important. The fact is, RCC tradition contradicts scripture(Gods word), therefore it is false and the RCC is another false religion deceiving millions.
joeforHistruth 10 months ago
@joeforHistruth asked: "The Apostolic Church never adhered to any such doctrine, really?"
Yeah, really. There was no canon of scripture during the Apostolic Age.
@joeforHistruth said: "The N.T. has plenty to say about the word of God..."
Of course it does. However, divine revelation did not cease 1,900 years ago.
@joeforHistruth said: "RCC tradition contradicts scripture"
Some Roman Catholic traditions contradict canonical writings.
The Protestant sola scriptura dogma also contradicts them.
HeroOfChristArchives 10 months ago
@HeroOfChristArchives There were scriptures, i never said canon. Yes revelation did cease, the canon is closed.
Some RCC contradict? Most contradict the bible. I'm talking heresy. Comoaring that to sola scriptura is laughable, there is no comparison. There is so much from the RCC that contradicts the word of God.
As Christ said, "have you not read", "it is written" , the RCC must not have read those. They just made it up as they went, not giving a rip about the bible.
joeforHistruth 10 months ago
@HeroOfChristArchives To start, calling Mary the All Holy One is blasphemous for sure. this contradicts scripture and gives Mary a name that would only belong to God. There is much more.
joeforHistruth 10 months ago
@joeforHistruth said: "To start, calling Mary the All Holy One is blasphemous"
I've already conceded that some Roman Catholic traditions contradict scripture.
@joeforHistruth said: "Yes, revelation did cease; the canon is closed."
WRITTEN revelation ceased. Revelation within the Church cannot ever cease, since the Church is a divinely ordained institution. (Matthew 16:17-19)
HeroOfChristArchives 10 months ago
@HeroOfChristArchives Those verses are not saying revelation is ongoing, unless you read into it.
And it's not a verse showing that Peter is a pope or proving the papacy.
joeforHistruth 10 months ago
@joeforHistruth - Matthew 16:17-19 proves that the Church is a divinely ordained institution. God operates through His Church, thereby giving necessary revelation. Are you insisting that God is dormant, inactive, and uncommunicative, having abandoned His Church until Christ's return?
HeroOfChristArchives 10 months ago
@HeroOfChristArchives Absolutely divinely ordained, but the canon is closed. No God is not still speaking. He has given us everything we need to know in His Holy word. Abandoned? Not at all, His Holy Spirit empowers us, we are sealed with, and gives us understanding of His word. He leads us and guides us as well, but He has said all He needs to say in His word.
joeforHistruth 10 months ago
@joeforHistruth said: "The (biblical) canon is closed" ✔
@joeforHistruth said: "No, God is not still speaking" ✖
@joeforHistruth said: "(God gave) us everything we need to know in (the bible)" ✖
@joeforHistruth said: "(God) has said all He needs to say in (the bible)" ✖
You're limiting divine revelation to a corpus of writings completed ca. 100 AD. You are effectively muzzling God, asserting that He has ceased communicating with HIS Church. This concept is neither biblical, nor is it plausible!
HeroOfChristArchives 10 months ago
@HeroOfChristArchives God is communicating with His Church, through His all sufficient word, contained in the bible, which is biblical.
joeforHistruth 9 months ago
@joeforHistruth said: "God is communicating with His church through His all-sufficient word, contained in the bible"
Which church? Which canon? Which bible? What's this about 'all-sufficiency'? You're again regurgitating your 'sola scriptura' heresy which, as I've heretofore exposed, is utterly unbiblical.
Let me know when you're prepared to unmuzzle the mouth of God.
"Man will not live (ζησεται = future tense) by bread alone, but by
every word proceeding from the mouth of God." (Matthew 4:4)
HeroOfChristArchives 9 months ago
@HeroOfChristArchives The Church of Christ, those who have repented and by faith alone, in Christ alone, are saved by Gods grace alone, these are justified and are the ones who make up the Church, Gods elect.
Yes the scriptures are sufficient. The bible, not with the Apocrypha.
You exposed nothing of the sort.
Absolutley Matt. 4:4, future tense, great. Of course all of the God-breathed scripture had not been given yet when Christ said that. But now we have all of His word, in the bible.
joeforHistruth 9 months ago
@joeforHistruth said: "That Church of Christ, those who have repented and by faith alone, in Christ alone, are saved by God's grace alone, these are justified and are the ones who make up the Church, God's elect."
Oh really? This, according to YouTube user joeforHistruth alone? #LOL
@joeforHistruth said: "Yes the scriptures are sufficient"
For what are they 'sufficient'? Where in the Bible is this expounded?
@joeforHistruth said: "The bible, not with the Apocrypha."
Why not the Apocrypha?
HeroOfChristArchives 9 months ago
@HeroOfChristArchives According to Gods word.
Yes sufficient. Start with Matt. 4:4, John 8:30-31, Heb. 4:12
joeforHistruth 9 months ago
@joeforHistruth said: "Start with Matt. 4:4"
As has already been perfectly and succinctly elucidated, Matthew 4:4 disproves your unbiblical position termed 'sola scriptura'.
"Man will not live (ζησεται = future tense) by bread alone, but by
every word proceeding from the mouth of God." (Matthew 4:4)
@joeforHistruth said: "John 8:30-31"
There exists no mention of the scriptures in these passages.
@joeforHistruth said: "Heb. 4:12"
ζων γαρ ο λογος του θεου
"For the word of God is living"
OK?
HeroOfChristArchives 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HeroOfChristArchives Matt 4:4 disproves nothing of the sort.
What true Church is God still speaking through then?? Do you have a name?
joeforHistruth 9 months ago
@joeforHistruth - By your statements, you're actually making Jesus out to be a liar when asserting that "God is not still speaking." Are you insisting that man SHOULD live by bread alone, and not by every word proceeding from the mouth of God?
@joeforHistruth asked: "What true Church is God still speaking through then?"
Nice straw man. It is written that MAN will live by every word proceeding from the mouth of God, not that "the church" will live by every word proceeding from the mouth of God.
HeroOfChristArchives 9 months ago
@HeroOfChristArchives Does future tense means it keeps going on and on? Or when Jesus said it the rest of God-breathed scripture was not given. It has now been given. We have Gods word, the bible, for every man to live by. There is no straw man. I would add every man should live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God, He could not have said it any other way, but lost sinners will not, only those that belong to Him, Christians, will actually live by His word.
joeforHistruth 9 months ago
@joeforHistruth asked: "Does future tense mean it keeps going on and on?"
The Greek construction implies that, for as long as words proceed forth from the mouth of the eternal God (i.e., eternally), man will live by them, not by bread alone.
@joeforHistruth said: "We have God's word, the bible, for every man to live by."
Yet, the bible is not 'all-sufficient', nor the 'sole' source of divine revelation.
@joeforHistruth said: "...live by every word... from the mouth of God"
Amen, EVERY word.
HeroOfChristArchives 9 months ago
@HeroOfChristArchives Now since you think God is still speaking, what is He saying and to whom is He saying it?
joeforHistruth 9 months ago
@joeforHistruth asked: "....to whom is (God) speaking?"
God is continually speaking to His elect, whom He has chosen.
"...but for the sake of the elect, whom He has chosen..." (Mark 13:20)
"What Israel seeks after, it did not obtain, but the elect obtained." (Romans 11:7)
@joeforHistruth asked: "....what is (God) saying....?"
If you were of God's elect, you would know His words. But since you have thought to muzzle the mouth of God, and have rejected His Spirit, you cannot know God's words.
HeroOfChristArchives 9 months ago
@HeroOfChristArchives What is God saying? Do these elect you speak of belong to or are a member of a specific denomination or do they have a specific name?
I know without a doubt I am Gods elect, I know in whom I have believed, I know who has saved me, so spare me the cult like talk. I have not rejected Christ or the Holy Spirit. I do reject vehemetly those that say they hear from God extra biblical revelation when they haven't. And call it the word of God.
joeforHistruth 9 months ago
@joeforHistruth - You're basically asking, "Who are the elect of God?"
"Blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it." (Luke 11:28)
"For whoever does the will of God, the same is my (family)." (Mark 3:35)
Only they who do the will of God will enter into His Kingdom. (Matt 7:21)
"Whoever does the will of God abides forever." (1 John 2:17)
God's angels will gather together His elect from everywhere. (Mark 13:27)
Those who obey God's commands remain in fellowship with Him. (1 John 3:24)
HeroOfChristArchives 9 months ago
@joeforHistruth said: "....spare me the cult talk."
Are you likening the Holy Spirit of God to a cult leader?
"For to one is given via the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge per the same Spirit; but to another, faith by the same Spirit; to another, gifts of healing by the one Spirit; to another, the working of miracles; to another, prophecy; to another, the discernment of spirits; to another, native languages; to another, the interpretation of languages."
HeroOfChristArchives 9 months ago
@joeforHistruth said: "I do reject vehemently those who say they hear from God"
"Whoever is of God hears the words of God. Because of this,
you do not hear: because you are not of God." (John 8:47)
Man will live by every word proceeding from the mouth of God. (Matthew 4:4)
"My (family) are those who hear the word of God, and do it." (Luke 8:21)
"Blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it." (Luke 11:28)
"Faith is from hearing, but this hearing through the word of God." (Romans 10:17)
HeroOfChristArchives 9 months ago
@HeroOfChristArchives "I do reject vehemently those who say they hear from God"
Of course the whole gist of our comments were hearing from God outside of His written word, which is contained in the bible. All Christians hear from God when they're reading His word, but no one is getting new revelation. Of course you knew what I meant since I've already said it in other comments.
So answer my questions about these elect you are refering? You keep ignoring it.
joeforHistruth 9 months ago
@joeforHistruth said: "....no one is getting new revelation."
According to what/whom? Certainly not according to the Bible! The fallacy you're committing is recasting the written words to conform to your tendentious, biblically unfounded, dogmatic prepossession. You're intimating Joe's truth, not God's truth. Obviously, the myriad of biblical passages I've hitherto cited totally annihilates your unsustainable suspicion that "God is not still speaking," as if the Creator of All could be muzzled!
HeroOfChristArchives 9 months ago
@HeroOfChristArchives hitherto?? Does anyone use that word?
You showed some good passages, they do not prove God is still speaking, other than through His word.
Am I saying God could not speak if He wanted, absolutely no, He definately could. What I am saying is He has chosen to speak through His Apostels/Prophets to give us His word, the bible. The canon is closed.
And I guess your to scared to name a church that these elect attend. Because if ite the false RCC than you have some problems.
joeforHistruth 9 months ago
@joeforHistruth said: "Hitherto? Does anyone use that word?"
Yes. In fact, it tallies over 1.5 million results in Google — over the past month.
@joeforHistruth said: "(Those passages) do not prove God is still speaking"
Actually, all of the passages cited bear witness to God's eternally abiding voice.
"Grass withers, flowers fade; but the word of our God abides forever" (Isaiah 40:8)
@joeforHistruth said: "The canon is closed"
Graciously, God's mouth isn't closed. His word endures forever.
HeroOfChristArchives 9 months ago
@joeforHistruth said: "And I guess you're too scared to name a church that these elect attend. Because if it's the false RCC, then you have some problems."
The elect of God aren't limited to any single Christian denomination, just as they're not limited to any single ethnicity, nationality, culture or language, as it is written:
"You redeemed us to God in your blood, out of every race, and language, and people, and ethnos; and you made us a kingdom of priests unto our God." (Revelation 5:9-10)
HeroOfChristArchives 9 months ago
@HeroOfChristArchives I"The elect of God aren't limited to any single Christian denomination, just as they're not limited to any single ethnicity, nationality, culture or language, as it is written:"
I agree
joeforHistruth 9 months ago
@HeroOfChristArchives God has plenty to say to those who add to or take from His word.
joeforHistruth 9 months ago
@joeforHistruth Look at the absurdity of the Charismatic movement, they say they hear from God, but the things they say do not line up with scripture.
Then there are the cults, JW's and Mormons, they have built their whole false system on people claiming they heard new revelation from God. Then of course there is the RCC(which I would call cult like), they have many false heretical teachings, all from God they say. I think not.
joeforHistruth 10 months ago
The Early Church affirmed Prima Scriptura, and never Sola Scriptura.
Sola Scriptura was the invention of Protestant Reformer Martin Luther.
Martin Luther is the apostate who called 'James' an "epistle of straw."
HeroOfChristArchives 10 months ago
Tradition, Is inspired by the Holy Spirit, to the successors of the Aposotles, It is the Word of God for the Priest to preserve, expound, and spread faithfully abroad by their teaching. their you have it take it or leave it. Tradition and Scripture go hand in hand
myladyschild 10 months ago
@myladyschild Okay, with that definition can you give me a list of infallible Traditions that everyone must believe?
zipper778 10 months ago
@zipper778 You asked me a question I answered now let me ask you a question where does it say sola scripture in the bible.
myladyschild 10 months ago
@myladyschild That's fair. The principles of Sola Scriptura can be found in 1 Cor. 4:6; the Bereans compared what Paul was saying to the Scriptures in Acts 17:11; Jesus asked if people had ever read the Scriptures in Matthew 21:42; Apollos refuted from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ in Acts 18:28; 2 Tim 3:15-17 shows that we can be thoroughly equipped by the Scriptures.
Now, about that list of Traditions?
zipper778 10 months ago
@zipper778 Cor 4;6 is one of the most confusing passages in scripture , but it does not say scripture alone Paul was saying do not be arrogant. Acts 17;11they searched the scriptures it does not mean scripture alone none of these passages say what you say they mean . acts 20;7 This verse gives us a glimpse of Christian worship on Sunday Oral Tradition. There are to many passages in the bible that say not by scripture alone. by the way who gave you the authority to interpret the Bible
myladyschild 10 months ago
@zipper778 Tradition, infant baptism, the Trinity, Inerrancy of the bible, Purgatory. Examples of Tradition was believed by early church fathers. How could you believe that the 1st 1500 years of the church taught lies, and still be Christian. in your logic all the church fathers are in hell. 1500 years of people going to hell despite the fact that early Christians died for their faith.
myladyschild 10 months ago
@myladyschild I suggest that you re-read those verses again. They are easy to understand, and they clearly show that we must have a standard which is above the Apostles, Scripture. I don't understand how you believe that I think the Christian church has been wrong for 1500 years. I never said that because I don't believe that the church has to be perfect. Only Jesus Christ is. I praise Him for His wonderful gift of Salvation.
zipper778 10 months ago
@zipper778 I suggest you read those verses again, if they are so easy to understand why don't you understand them ask yourself this if the church was right for 1500 years( the Catholic church) then they ca not be wrong now Remember not one doctrine of the churched has been changed in 2000 years
myladyschild 10 months ago
@myladyschild Maybe you need to be more objective with church history. Even Cardinal Newman recognized that a LOT has changed in the past 2000 years. NO ONE believed that the pope could be infallible (not talking about impeccable) before 1870, torture was papally approved for about 600-700 years, transubstatiation was not believed by the early church, Marian doctrines have RADICALLY changed. It is an absolute denial of history to believe that the RCC has never changed.
zipper778 10 months ago
I wonder what the Apostles were teaching then? They were teaching God's Word Alone! Oh, which is Holy Scripture.................................
3333333333joeberry 11 months ago
@3333333333joeberry and Tradition
myladyschild 10 months ago
@myladyschild Define Tradition.
zipper778 10 months ago
Thanks for posting out of context garbage...
Majerkellous 1 year ago
Show the rest of the clip, because I am willing to bet that Mr. White afterwards has more to say about that. The apostles could couldn't practice sola scriptura because it hadn't been written yet. The same goes for sola ecclesia because the Church hadn't been established like it is today either. The apostles practiced the word of God straight from the author, just as the Bible is the living word of God, not the Church.
moredoughnuts01 1 year ago 2
I do not know what Mr. White beieves and am not defending him at all. However I must point out that if the same question was of Catholic traditions the answer also would be no. Did the people in Jesus' day practice scripture plus Catholic traditions? NO! Did thr Apostles practice scripture plus Catholic tradition? NO!. Was the ealy church called Catholic? NO!
ttsqas 1 year ago
@ttsqas so then brethren, hold on and stand firm to TRADITIONS which you were taught whether by word of mouth or by letter from us 2 Thessalonians 2;15
myladyschild 10 months ago
@myladyschild Sorry, that misquoting of scripture might work with others but not with me. Paul wrote that the church was to hold on to "stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle". Paul said nothing about "word of mouth" you and many from your sect add "of mouth". Paul and the Apostles directly taught the 1st century church what traditions they were to keep since they were alive to do so.
ttsqas 7 months ago
@myladyschild If your twisted version of what Paul wrote was correct then that would mean that the 1st century was instructed to hold to traditions only from the Apostles letters and not their in person oral teaching, since you link "word" to word of mouth (which is always at the least 2nd hand). The word "us" applies to the Apostles spoken words and their written ones.
ttsqas 7 months ago
@myladyschild Correction; 1st century church
ttsqas 7 months ago
@ByzantineCrusader This is the false gospel that you preach, " if your Church has no Cross on top, has no icons, has no candles, has no frankensense, has no preists that go by NOT THEIR OWN STANDARDS, has preists that "don't need to go by a dress code such as wearing robes", etc., then it is no Church, no offense, it's a restroom."
Straight from Satan, not ever taught by the Apostles. You are blind and decieved I continue to pray that God will save you.
ttsqas 1 year ago
@ttsqas Yes indeed what you say about yourself and your deniel of that the Church was Catholic is true. "This is an excellent example of a perverted gospel which Paul warned of." He warned of those who would pervert the gospel in all it's works and aspects. Whether it was for a slight and minute detail of the smallest interpretation of it, to those who would change the very text of it. And Protestants, and Moslems, and you, fall right in. Any part of the Gospel you pervert, oral or written.
ByzantineCrusader 1 year ago
@ByzantineCrusader 4For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
5For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.
6If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained.
ttsqas 1 year ago
@ByzantineCrusader Take note that Paul says that even when in later times some leave the faith and believe and teach heresies the leader was to do what? "put the brethren in REMEMBERANCE of these things,
Show me where he said give the church a name. Show me where he authorized adding new traditions, show me!
ttsqas 1 year ago
@ByzantineCrusader 2And THE THINGS THOU HAST HEARD OF ME among many witnesses, >THE SAME< commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.
16Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee
ttsqas 1 year ago
@ttsqas So, if you were to live back then, and tell the ones who serve Ignatius that they are wrong, well guess what, Ignaitus has been TOUCHED and APPROVED by the Apostles, and the Apostles will tell you that you are and were wrong. So, that is how it is exactly to this day. And if you were to persist back then, then the Apostles themselves, would excommunicate you. So that is the TRUTH of this all. You speak for the Apostles that which they have not spoken or written, and you add to it.
ByzantineCrusader 1 year ago
@ByzantineCrusader If you have a problem with "it is written" then make sure you complain to Jesus Christ when you stand before him. I pray that he opens your eyes before that day.
ttsqas 1 year ago
@ttsqas So while you and everyone else who differs from you, and millions of others "all got it right", ONE OF THEM has the crown, that is the SOURCE and ONE OF THEM is REAL. So where that ONE is REAL, all others are just fallen, and shattered to peices. So while everyone claims to be a Christian, ONE OF THEM must be correct. So while everyone says this or that, ONE OF THEM, has been physically touched and approved by the Very Apostles.
ByzantineCrusader 1 year ago
@ttsqas "mine and the true church's is" So called "spiritually"? Well, mine too. AND PHYSICALLY. While you have this DELUSIONAL bridge, we have NO GAPS. So while YOU THINK that you are in relationship with Christ, GOD has a guide standing RIGHT HERE ON EARTH that will POINT YOU TO HIIM. So while YOU think that all that is "not needed", you don't just simply stop there. So there is the problem. You attack those that DO NEED the Marvelous Fruits of the small musturd seed, like the Bible.
ByzantineCrusader 1 year ago
@ttsqas and the New Seed is there. So it's time for you to look at the large and beutiful tree that has been grown from the seed. It's there, and the gates of hell WILL NOT Prevail, and will NEVER Prevail.
ByzantineCrusader 1 year ago
@ttsqas Because the seed that was planted 2000 years ago, continues to grow and develop, and is fully preached, and is at the same time THAT TRUE CHURCH that was been always "the pillar and foundation of Truth" of ALL TRUTH, and that true Church that has been "the faith delivered unto the saints ONCE AND FOR ALL", and so it's time for you to realize that no Martin Luther, or you Yourself, can put a NEW Seed in it's place. Because the NEW Seed has already been planted 2000 years ago,
ByzantineCrusader 1 year ago
@ttsqas Our "sect" is founded by Jesus Christ himself, so if you want to still persist in calling that a "sect" then it's all on you. But our Church, like a small musturd seed, far outgrew itself, and is far too large, to be still considered a "sect", it's time for you to open your eyes, and see the truth of how large and prosporous a little musturd seed planted by Christ Himself has grown. Now, It's TIME for you, to realize that a NEW "mustard seed" is NOT NEEDED anymore to plant,
ByzantineCrusader 1 year ago
@ttsqas You KNOW that the Catholic Church is NOT a Sect, and YOU KNOW that you are acting like YOUR OWN SECT, so " it is time for you to stop lying to yourself and expecting others to accept the lies that you have." It's really time for you to come and join the ark, and stop expecting others to pull themselves away from the arc, just because you did so. It's time for you to get in the right track, and not pull others way from it, to a LOST TRACK, so it's really TIME FOR YOU.
ByzantineCrusader 1 year ago
@ByzantineCrusader Show me your proof that Paul authorized those given Apostolic auhority to teach anything other than what was already established! Paul said THE SAME referring to THE THINGS THOU HAST HEARD OF ME. So Timothy was to committ what he heard from the Apostles which is what your sect's leaders have failed to do.
ttsqas 1 year ago
@ttsqas "No it is time for you to stop lying to yourself and expecting others to accept the lies that you have. " You yourself KNOW that the Church was Catholic, you KNOW that Pauls message was UNIVERSAL, you KNOW that Romans says "for he is not a jew which is one outwardly, but he is a jew which is one inwardly" You KNOW that Romans says "for they are not all Israel, that are of Israel", so YOU that Romans says" for there is neither Jew nor Gentile", so You KNOW that the Church was CATHOLIC
ByzantineCrusader 1 year ago
@ttsqas So I am not saying God has to do anything. But what I find is that those who are in need of God's forgiveness, are those who say that the Earth was 6 LITERAL DAYS because God HAS TO HAVE HAD IT that way. So I would advise you to redirect your prayers on those that need them. Because they speak for God and God doesn't approve or employ his seal of approval for them. So, you should redirect your prayers to those that do such foolish things, and go against Truth.
ByzantineCrusader 1 year ago
@ttsqas The Holy Spirit did leave something behind, like Scriptures, and the written records of collectively of other Church Fathers, to POINT TO HIS TRUTH. So God did not even have to write the Bible, and he didn't. He left it for men to write it down. So the same men that wrote down the Bible, spoke and said, and DID other things as well. God did not HAVE TO have had the Apostles themselves write it down, it could've been finished by a scribe or someone even after them.
ByzantineCrusader 1 year ago
@ttsqas About this offensive comment:"That is your ignorant conclusion, and I pray that God will forgive your foolish suggestion that he has to record the CONTINUATION of his Church because you think he should. Where did God ever promise to record the history of the church? Such thinking is from one source; the devil." First of all, I never said that he HAS to. God did not HAVE to Write the Scriptures down, even. So he Doesn't HAVE TO do anything that he dosn't want to.
ByzantineCrusader 1 year ago
@ttsqas Otherwise, if you don't substantiate your claims to TRUTH, then all what you've said, and all Protestants put together are in mere speculation and opinion, and they will have to say that "God told them so" and "they are all prophets" which they do. But if that's the case, then as "prophets" their opinions should be further scripture, but it's not. So all in all, it's speculation, speculation, speculation, and RESISTANCE to the TRUTH.
ByzantineCrusader 1 year ago
@ttsqas "Historians also say that there is very little if any proof in Egyptian history of Israeal captivity...." Well, THAT'S IRRELEVANT. The fact of the matter is, that Christ came later, and the later the times, the more closer it is to us, and the more abudant sources there are out there for us. So whether or not the earlier sources lack evidence, the fact is that in the later sources, THERE ARE MORE EVIDENCES. And to consolidate this debate, u have to equal out the wieght of in ur side
ByzantineCrusader 1 year ago
@ttsqas "The Apostolic traditions did not include calling the church the Catholic church and I will do what the Apostle Paul said to do and standfast, hold to, and continue in what they taught the 1st century church. " Okay, it's all nice, but YOU'RE NOT in the 1st Century. You're in the 21st Century. The Apostles works obviously need to be interpreted CORRECTLY from the CORRECT LENSES. And the Tradition with 2000 years of knowledge does it the best.
ByzantineCrusader 1 year ago
@ttsqas Good you've read Eusibius. " also remind you that no historic text can undo the Apostles oral or written words. " THEY DON'T. So now, use Eusibius to establish the truth of what you've said, because you can't use Scriptures to establish it, that it, you're not able to. Because I can use Scriptures to more than refute your calims, so throwing scripture verses back and forth does not lead to anywhere. Now, see which Church is the HISTORICAL Church, on SECONDARY things.
ByzantineCrusader 1 year ago
@ttsqas The Word Universal or CATHOLIC doesn't have to be in the Bible, for the Church to be called that. The CHURCH IS UNIVERSAL. IT's Catholic. The Church IS HOLY. The Church is ONE. THe CHURCH IS APOSTOLIC. These are the things that MAKE THE CHURCH what they are. 1. One 2. Holy 3. Catholic 4. Apostolic they MAKE THE CHURCH what it is. Just like Jesus being God makes Him who He is. These are components of the Church, this is what the Church IS. The word Catholic MEANS Universal.
ByzantineCrusader 1 year ago
@ttsqas So what you've said right here: "You can spin it any way you like but your Catholic ancestors added to what the Apostles established in the 1st century not conintued in it." Is completely unfounded, and if I refuted this allegation, then it's slander. All it comes down to is name calling, and that is the MEANING of the NAME, and that will be easy to Proove. THe CATHOLIC CHURCH IS CALLED THE CHURCH. So I don't see what and were you have a problem with that.
ByzantineCrusader 1 year ago
@ttsqas These things, like "prayer to saints" even though it's not, r not only brought up in the circles of Christianity, but they r brought up in the circles of Islam as well, &etc. So it's overall foriegn to Christian Traditions, because Christianity seems more to go ourway, i.e. asking saints to pray for u,& icons & trinity & etc., rather than going the other way around. As u hopefully noticed, Uniterianism can never square well with Christianity. It works better with Judaism or Islam, etc
ByzantineCrusader 1 year ago
@ttsqas And the Moslems came up with this argument as well. So what's your point? There are many things that the Moslems said that are Idolatry 800-900 years before the Protestants did. In the matter of fact, it will be noteworthy to read in wekipedia about Protestantism and Protestantism and Islam, where it gives that link in the article of Protestantism. Abhorrance of saints, and iconoclasm are nothing new, so what's your point?
ByzantineCrusader 1 year ago
@ttsqas "Saying that we should pray to Mary or other deceased Christians is not defining what the Apostles taught because as you well know they did not teach it." And neither does the Eastern Orthodox Church on in this case the Roman Catholic Church, so what's your point? You are arguing in circles and attacking a strawman. But asking someone to Pray for you is not a sin, even if you ask the rightous ones who died i.e. Saints, and etc., since God is the God of the Living and not the Dead.
ByzantineCrusader 1 year ago
@ttsqas to corrections, and to what you might proove where I misrepresented my church here or there. But even if that's the case, I've read the Bibe on my own 4 whole times, and so, this is where my conclusions come and fit like a glove with that of the Church, and Believe me, parts of my conclusions took time to atleast REALIZE where the Church truly stands. So, it's not like I presupposed everything, I came to my conclusions, because I was privy to receiving more than what you received.
ByzantineCrusader 1 year ago
@ttsqas "the Apostles had already taught. Saying that the Church now has to be called the Catholic church is not defining anything it is adding a tradition not from the Apostles." Now, this is clearly your ADDITIONS to the text of the Scriptures and to Apostolic Traditions, and they come from OUTSIDE the Church. Everything that you've said in all your discussions was an ADDITION and based on NO authority, so on what do you add these things? Atleast I am representing something, and am open...
ByzantineCrusader 1 year ago
@ttsqas & u already know how I view it "the gates of hell will not prevail against it(the Church)", so my last statement shouldn't be unclear to u. But u make a decision to somehow rely & presuppose on the fact that the conclusion of revelation closes in the death of the last Author-Apostle of the NT, & so, even if they did historically say anything else, all this wouldn't matter to u. So when will you get beyond the limits of scripture, because it's clear that it doesn't cover EVERYTHING.
ByzantineCrusader 1 year ago
@ttsqas So it's clear, that you don't want to trust ignatius on his decisions(when it comes to the universality, not his private opinions), and that seems to be very clear to me. Because the moment you trust Ignatius, then you'll have to trust his successors, and etc., and on and on and on it goes, and then you'll see that there is no Broken Chain. And then you'll see that there was not a time where something has become interrupted to the point where the "gates of hell prevailed"
ByzantineCrusader 1 year ago
@ttsqas That's why these words have never been added to the Scriptures when we continously held true to the Scriptures for the past 1500 years before the Protestants came along. And if you want to say that St. Constantine corrupted the Church, well then, that supposedly should have been in 325AD, and the Canon was ESTABLISHED in 381A.D so, if that's the case, then you should go back and see what was "truly" written by the apostles themselves. And what's the "true" canon, or "scripture"
ByzantineCrusader 1 year ago
@ttsqas But that doesn't mean that human being's PRIVATE Opinions, become all of a sudden CATHOLIC. It only means that human's private opinions are so harmoniously distinct, from the Collective and In Communion Opinions that are affirmed and approved and guided overall by the Holy Spirit. So, has the New Testament Church from it's very beginning always been Universal(Catholic), YES. The word "catholic" just like the word "trinity" is NOT neccessary for US, to have them in the Scriptures.
ByzantineCrusader 1 year ago
@ttsqas Was that not the Same HOLY SPIRIT that guarded the Scriptures, that continues to guide THAT CHURCH which guards and decides everything else? Or did the Holy Spirit do a "half ass" job, and just preserve the Scriptures but allowed the rest of the Church to get corrupted? You must make your answer on that. Did God allow his Church to be corrupted? Well, the answer is NO. Because collectively the Church is the Body of Christ. Will there be human private opinions, & etc., well always.
ByzantineCrusader 1 year ago
@ttsqas will be, did Ignatuis or anyone after the Ignatius, and 1500 years before the Protestants, add the word Catholic into the Scriptures? And the answer is NO. So, if the Church seemed credible and praise worthy to hand down the Scriptures, and to preserve them, and to guard them from corruption and to canonize that which was truly Scripture from when it was written and handed down, then why is it not credible and maintaining the same key essentials to Holy Tradition?
ByzantineCrusader 1 year ago
@ByzantineCrusader “we can say (according to your logic) that Scriptures when they were written did not have spacing between words, did not have lower case letters, John did not write John 7:53-8:11, Mark did not write Mark 16:8-20, there was no Capter and Verse division, there was no punctuation marks, so everything that was added later on to the text of the Bible, has been ADDED to the Scriptures, and they were not there to begin with. “
ARE YOU SERIOUS?
ttsqas 1 year ago
@ttsqas Did the Church close and seal at the death of the last apostle? NO. And if you think it's so, then how so, and where is your PROOF? As I have said continuously, all the proofs and all the evidences, side to the favor of OUR CHURCH. And OUR CHURCH is Proven to be the Historical Church. Now whether one is ROMAN Catholic, or Oriental Ortodox or etc, they are still Christians and HISTORICAL Christians in that regard. So the overall question that should clarify everything to you...
ByzantineCrusader 1 year ago
@ByzantineCrusader "You said: The Apostles did not call the church the Catholic(in it's PRECISE and EXACT usage of the EXACT WORD:Catholic) church so this is not Apostolic tradition pure and simple."
I said that the Apostles did not call the church the Catholic church PERIOD! When you have to add words like (in it's PRECISE and EXACT usage of the EXACT WORD:Catholic) that is aways a sign that you about to start twisting the truth.
ttsqas 1 year ago
@ttsqas Did Ignatius add anything? The answer to that question is a pure and simple NO. Did he have his own private opinions like everyone else, YES. But did he add them to the Church, NO. But did Jesus give the Apostles some authority? Yes. And did the Apostles hand down the same kind of authority to their immediate successors that they received from Jesus Christ as commissioned? YES.&so what kind of authority was that? Well, Matt.18:18 says about the Church, WHATSOEVER ye shall bind...
ByzantineCrusader 1 year ago
@ttsqas Same with learning a different subject, say a foreign launguage and the grammer, you're not going to have the time to question everything on your own, when you are in the process of IMMEDIATE Learning, so you just have to submit to those who know more in that area, and later on it will make more sense, when you do studies and research on your own. But if people were to say, "I don't need a teacher because it goes against the teachers who wrote this textbook", well, then that's a presup.
ByzantineCrusader 1 year ago
@ttsqas conclusions from here or there, based on their limited knowledge and decisions, that they come to regret later on, when they aquire a whole lot more knowledge. It's like when I saw that the Orthodox Church has as their CENTRAL Book the FOUR Gospels, and not the whole Bible, and I wondered why, but I accepted it because it somehow made sense, and later on it made all the more sense. And it made all the more sense, because I didn't resist step one. I just took it for what it was.
ByzantineCrusader 1 year ago
@ttsqas So you might as well just keep on picking and choosing which parts or interpretations you like here, or which parts or interpretations you like there, but God has His own standards, and men have theirs. Whether or not your standards will comply with God's standards, well, only GOD KNOWS. I am not going to decide or judge for you. But you're still resisting something, It's not like I am not open to the Truth, I never said reform is all that of a bad thing, it's when people make...
ByzantineCrusader 1 year ago
@ttsqas "Paul did not say hold to traditions not from us as long as they happen within the 1st hundred years after we Apostles have passed on. " You have never PROOVED your point. If you want to challenge the Credibility of the Church, or the Apostles or of Jesus Christ himself, well, to the believers, the burden of proof is on you, Because all of the evidence points to our favor. And you're eithere a "catholic" or a "protestant" whether you like it or not.
ByzantineCrusader 1 year ago
@ttsqas So why trust something that's been in the hands of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches this whole time, 1500 years before Protestantism came about, and 2000 years before YOUR Church came into being? Why trust the New Testament Written Scriptures that is clearly and historically proven of coming AFTER the TRUE Church, but BEFORE the false Churches that place themselves under it? I don't see to what avail will you still keep trusting Scriptures, if you were to realize the logic behind it
ByzantineCrusader 1 year ago
@ttsqas So if for example a passages said GODISNOWHERE and the Catholics have been saying it for 1500 years that this passage would have read "God is now here" and there was all this tradition[s] and sources backing everysingle thing up on this, someone along the years 1600-1700 will come and say that it really says "God is nowhere" and their interpretation is correct because everyone else is "just men" right? That's the kind of logic that you would have to employ. SO why won't you?
ByzantineCrusader 1 year ago
@ttsqas Lining your logic up with Scriptures, we can say (according to your logic) that Scriptures when they were written did not have spacing between words, did not have lower case letters, John did not write John 7:53-8:11, Mark did not write Mark 16:8-20, there was no Capter and Verse division, there was no punctuation marks, so everything that was added later on to the text of the Bible, has been ADDED to the Scriptures, and they were not there to begin with. So it goes on even further...
ByzantineCrusader 1 year ago
@ttsqas Here, let me nail this in to your logic, so that you'll get it the right way, I'll use Scripture and Tradition: You said: The Apostles did not call the church the Catholic(in it's PRECISE and EXACT usage of the EXACT WORD:Catholic) church so this is not Apostolic tradition pure and simple.
It was clear and obvious that the CHURCH was the [Catholic] Church. As time went by everyone started claiming they were the Church, so a Definition was needed. Now, lining this up with....
ByzantineCrusader 1 year ago
@ttsqas Who WILL BE the Heretic according to your opinion? Who is the Heretic that supposedly starte this lie, did I give you the answer? Will you say it's Ignatius that started this "lie" about the Church is Catholic, and he was soo vicious and greedy and power hungry that he gave his life for the Church and was Martyred to go to heaven? The Student of John the Apostle? Patriarch of Antioch? Who is the heretic?
ByzantineCrusader 1 year ago
@ttsqas Correction to "God did choose Josephus to establish the church he chose the Apostles."
I meant to say God did not choose Josephus to establish the church he chose the Apostles.
ttsqas 1 year ago
@ttsqas "I meant to say God did not choose Josephus to establish the church he chose the Apostles." And did God choose Ignatius? Because the Apostles chose him to succeed them. And they chose Clement and Linus as well. So did God choose them or not? And back to the same question, or whether you beleive in Sola Scriptura or not, are you really a Protestant or not? And if not, then WHY DO YOU PROTEST? Only "Protestants" PROTEST. What is in it for you to PROTEST?
ByzantineCrusader 1 year ago
@ByzantineCrusader Only the most evil and deceitful person would compare punctuation marks to religious traditions. I thought you were intelligent but apparently I was mistaken. I thought you had some integrity but obviously I was mistaken. There is no comparison to adding punctuation marks to a text and adding entire words which change the meaning of the text. Just how ignorant are you?
ttsqas 1 year ago
@ByzantineCrusader Do I need to get my 10 year old nephew to explain to you the difference between saying that the true Church has to be called the Catholic church when the Apostles never left such a tradition and placing punctuation marks in the translated scriptures where needed? Please tell me you are only pretending to be so ignorant!
ttsqas 1 year ago