Catholic Douay R. contains all 73 books, including the 7 Deutero-Canonical books (erroneously called Apocrypha by Protestants). These 7 books were included in the 1611 KJV, but Not in later KJV Bibles.
1946 Dead-sea scrolls, prove 7 DC books were used by the Jews in Alexandria.
Palestinian Jews did Not accept the 7 DC books for their version of Scriptures nor New Testament. Protestants base their Bible on this version which comes from a people who did Not accept Christ as Messiah.
Again the dishonesty of Rome, No protestant says Jesus practiced sola scriptura or the apostles (In the new testament sense) Since the new testament was being composed. Now Jesus did practice it in the old testament sense when rebuking the occupants of the seat of Moses with scripture and their traditions of elders (Equivalence of Romes claims of tradition) in mark 7 now it was taught by the apostles but could not have been practice at the time of oral preaching but we don't deny oral preaching.
"You have chosen to embrace the ultimate authority of Rome, and your choice was a fallible choice, and therefore anything that follows after that can have no more certainty..."
And James White follows Rome's decision that there should be 27 books in the New Testament. He can have no more certainty in his bible than his certainty in the fallible Catholic Church.
A brilliant point and one James White set himself up with. Madrid's point I discussed below was even better.
Patrick Madrid's point regarding the canon of scripture is incredible!!! It demonstrates how inseperable tradition and scripture are. You can try to condermn the tradition the Catholic Church handed on when they determined the canon of scripture, but that would be condemning the Bible! That was a brilliant point that really makes you think outside the box.
The Apostles were eyewitnesses of the Lord's earthly life and heard directly from Him. No one can come later and modify what those men knew. If they had not written down their knowledge for later generations, then we could not know definitively what to believe. Oral Tradition is faulty because there is no guide on the veracity of assertions made. So-called apostolic tradition is used to bring novel doctrines and interpretations to the church and cannot be trusted the same as Scripture.
@Jere616 sad that u follow something that is a hericy i will ask u this did the apostals teach sola scriptura? Or sola fide? which is a word for word contridiction of the bible "NOT BY FAITH ALONE" JAMES 2:24
@gtepp031387 You assume I'm a protestant. I'm not. nor roman catholic. I'm Christian who believes the bible as supreme authority of doctrine and practice. I recognize both faith and works are necessary. But faith comes first, then God changes us so that we can serve God as we should. RCs claim faith starts at infant baptism. I was baptized RC, but was trapped in sins until I came to Jesus at 23 outside of RC church and was born again.The bible minus apocrypha I knew was truth.
@Jere616 Baptism is the first installment of the spirit of Grace and truth do u not believe this? And there is not Apocrypha in the bible even the Orthodox who split from the church in 1054 have the same bible as us it was not deemed apogrypha till the 15th century and that was done by the heritic Martin Luther who also wanted to through out the epistal of James as well. And just remember faith without works is dead not none existant faith alone can not save u!
@gtepp031387 The apocrypha were written after the last prophet of the OT. None of those books was quoted by the Lord or apostles. Jesus referred to the Law, prophets and psalms. that's it. Second, the first installment of the grace of God and his truth is believing on the Lord Jesus who died for sins and that God had raised him from the dead. Baptism is a sign of believing that. Infants cannot believe therefore cannot receive God's life until they do when they're older.
@Jere616 I am sorry u feal that way The LORD does not mention many books in the bible that does not mean they are not true and the whole bible including what u call the apograph was put together by the 1st century and many of the apostals still lived at that time so what u say is incorrect! U should study b4 u speak! And another thing find me ONE SINGLE PERSON b4 matin luther who thought being born again was anything besides baptism??????
@gtepp031387 Paul makes it clear that a person is saved by believing the message. A person would not get baptized until afterward as a sign of faith, not as a means to gain it. As to the apocrypha, it was written in the inter-testamental period after the last prophet Malachi. They were bundled with the OT scriptures when the Jews translated their major writings for the Alexandrian library. That's all. Thanks for your concern.
@Jere616 Ok so when John baptised did he make them show a sighn of faith? U know the Catholics have two differnet sacrements that deal with a type of baptism right? ever heard of confermation?
@gtepp031387 John told people who were coming for baptism to repent and do works fitting for righteousness. I was confirmed too as RC. that sacrament symbolized the Holy Spirit baptizing people.
@gtepp031387 I received God's life when I turned to Him in faith and not as an RC. I simply believed the Gospel and was saved from my sins for the first time ever. For all the sacraments I and everyone else my age I knew who took them so religiously, there wasn't a righteous person in the bunch. We all lived just as pagan as the non-believers or worse. Explain that if you can.
@Jere616 If u do not turn twords GOD then it really doesnt matter how much u go to any church or fakley take the sacrements thoe u were inside the church it sounds to me like u and these people of ur age where never part of the church.
@gtepp031387 Thank you. My point exactly. Yet RCs say infant baptism does make a person born again, and part of the church. Faith in Jesus is what makes anyone part of His church, despite church denomination. That is what I did. I receive his grace and live a new life by him now.
@Jere616 Yes it does make u born again yet this is a gift from GOD that one must accept through there other gift from GOD freewill(GOD will never take away ur freewill) but if u do not accept the gift it is of no use to u.
@gtepp031387 How does an external rite such as baptism impart a change to a person's spirit, especially when a person is not culpable at such an age nor able to exhibit evidence of a change? In the bible, faith always goes before baptism. With regard to infants then, on what grounds can baptism go before faith?
@Jere616 baptism makes u able to presue sanctification making u children of GOD and setting u free but it does not take away ur free will, and if u choose to sin again then u become a slave to that sin infant baptism is a promise made by the parents to teach christ and is but the 1st installment of grace.
@gtepp031387 It is not baptism that makes you able, it is faith in the Lord which prompts repentance that does. Baptism follows repentance, and is not the impartation of that enablement to be freed from sin. That is what happened to me.
@Jere616 Yes and u were already baptised yes? I do not say it is impossible for faith can be its own baptism but what the church does is not wrong. And what do u believe the Catholic church teaches that contridicts the original apostals? Remember we put the bible together do u think we would put something in it that we teach or disagree with?
@gtepp031387 some contradictions: Jesus forbade calling anyone father (Matt. 23:9); That Mary is a perpetual virgin (Matt. 1:25); That only certain Christians are saints (Romans 1:7; 1 Cor 1:2; Eph 1:1; Phil 1:1;); The elevation of Mary to Mediatrix; (1 Tim 2:5); That only certain believers are priests (1 Pet. 2:5; Rev 1:6); Purgatory for believers who die. (Luke 23:43); making communion more than a memorial (Luke 22:19) that a penance is necessary for absolution (1 john 1:9) Need more??
@Jere616 1st Do u have a problem with calling Adam or Jacob or Abraham or many others father? If u do then u cant read the bible! 2nd Mary being a perpetual virgin does not contridict scripture find me the passage for this???? 3rd Yes the gate is narrow there are over a billion people who call themselves christians do u think they will all be saints? 4th Some are called to do preach the gospel in different ways dont understand ur point there is much scripture on priesthood and there is much
@gtepp031387 Jesus forbade personally addressing someone on earth, (that is alive), as father, as you do to your priest. Mary had other children - Matthew 13:55-56 & Mark 6:3. and Joseph kept her a virgin UNTIL she had Jesus Matt 1:25. All believers are saints is clear from Scripture. RCs reserve the name for dead believers, Paul the apostle doesn't. Peter, whom you claim to follow the most, says the whole church are priests. "Is" is used to present a metaphor, not literal body and blood.
@Jere616 Oh so now its on earth thats alive well lets look at scripture shall we does it not say that thoes who believe in christ "they have died and have bin buried with him" Mary having other children is false as u no not anything about greek as the word for brothers and sisters is the same as cousins and such! No the body and blood Is the body and blood this Is my flesh eat it all of u, well to bad Jesus didnt have one of thoes good old souther baptist ministers to tell the people it s
@gtepp031387 You shall not address anyone on earth as father. period. The Greek word for brother can mean cousin, but is also means blood brother too, does it not? Andrew is Peter's brother or is that 'cousin?' or James and john were brothers or is that cousins? Jesus had other brothers. period. If Jesus meant transubstantiated bread and wine he would have used a different verb such as when the water was turned into wine at Cana. but he used the verb common for metaphor.
@Jere616 Lets listen to the direct successore of the apostal John shall we "They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes." -St Ignatious- I think ill stick with one who knew the apostals face to face and knew what they taught
@gtepp031387 You're welcome to stick with non-apostles on this matter. But, consider this, if communion is transubstantiated by an RC priest, it is transubstantiated in every service where it is partaken of. In other words, it cannot be only true among RCs, which is what they teach. However, Jesus did not say this will become my flesh and blood, but is. When he said that, he was still sitting there in his flesh with his blood still in him.
@Jere616 I'll stick with the deposit of Faith and thoes who learned from the apostals first hand yes. And the communion in a sence can be administered from all that truely believe(thoe thoes who truly believe follow the apostals and there teachings handed down to the church) and follow GODs church but as the church has decreed that only one dedicated to GOD should administer the communion one who believed would follow this.
@gtepp031387 is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved, but only through fire." (1 Corinthians 3:11-15) If you are to go with your opponent before a magistrate, make an effort to settle the matter on the way; otherwise your opponent will turn you over to the judge, and the judge will turn you over to the constable, and the constable throw you in into prison. I say to you, you will not be released until you have paid the last penny." (Luke 12:58-59)
@gtepp031387 My son, do not disdain the discipline of the Lord or lose heart when reproved by him; for whom the Lord loves, he likewise disciplines; he scourges every son he acknowledges." (Proverbs 3:11-12 and Hebrews 12:6-7). "Everyone will be salted with fire." (Mark 9:49) "And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age, or in the age to come."
@gtepp031387 (Matthew 12:32) This verse exemplifies that forgiveness is offered in the next life as well as this life, which Catholics argue is only possible if there is a state of purification.
@gtepp031387 The next age is not after one's death, but when Jesus returns to earth. Even the apostle's creed states he will judge the living and the dead after he returns, not immediately after one's death. so 1 Cor. 3 is a reference to that time. 1 cor 3 states that the DAY will disclose the manner of one's work. The DAY is not purgatory, it is the day of his return.
@gtepp031387 Those being forgiven in the next age refer to the people over whom Christ and his church will reign after his return, for he will establish his kingdom over the nations that live on earth at that time. It is they who may sin and be forgiven. It is the millennial reign. Rev. 20, Isaiah 65, Daniel 2, Zech 12-14, etc.
@Jere616 As this is ur personal interpritation,and as u are not a bishop,(apostalic successore) ur interpritation can not be validated niether can ur churches as they have not one apostalic successore who where alone given the charge and authority to hold the teaching of christ.
@gtepp031387 Views on millennialism are divided among the early church writers. I only brought it up with regard to purgatory. So, I will say that the doctrine of purgatory is the most muddled one I know of. No one knows how long a person is there, no one knows how many prayers it takes to get someone out, who actually has to go, or even what exactly it is. Yet, neither Lazarus the beggar or the good thief went there at their death. Why, if purgatory is certain.
@Jere616 I have given u scripture on the subject, and purgatory for the most part, u are correct, is a mystery. So is most of heaven, i believe purgatory is heaven, thoe this is my own interpritation and i speak not for the church. But i believe purgatory is the first of the three, or seven levels(depending on how many levels u hold heaven has i know its a least three as paul says so himself) of heaven. Jesus says there will be higher and lower station for people in heaven and also many houses.
@gtepp031387 Purgatory as a place one goes after death, a place of pain as official RC doctrine states, is contrary to the comforts of Paradise as Luke 16:24 “But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony." Lazarus was carried to his comfort by angels when he died. It is the rich man who suffers in fire. He is in fire, never Lazarus. Please explain Lazarus' comforts.
@Jere616 My point is when the bible shows by example and Jesus' very words (to the good thief) what happens to the righteous immediately after death, the purgatory doctrine turns such clear teaching into a complete obscurity. This is but one clear example of what I mean that RC doctrines contradicts scripture.
@Jere616 "all the dead shall be judged on there deeds" So u believe that by judging us GOD will place the one who has commited many grave sins in the same position in heaven to the one who has followed his word to the tee? Explain to me then how GOD is just and fair?
@gtepp031387 Rewards of the righteous do vary, for that is what it says, "He shall reward every man according to his deeds." All I am saying is that at death, the righteous do not suffer the torments of flame even for a little time. This is what the biographies of Lazarus and the rich man show. Righteous Lazarus went to Paradise upon death, the wicked rich man to flames. The good thief went to Paradise too upon death with Jesus. These clear examples do not support the doctrine of purgatory.
@Jere616 just a symbol he doesnt mean it mabey then many of his disiples wouldnt have "WALKED AWAY AND FOLLOW HIM NO MORE" Thief was he promised heaven why does Jesus constanly say heaven then to ther thief say another word? And the thief repented confessed loved these are works anyway. Penance is reconcilliation there is many way to have penance! "NOT BY FAITH ALONE" and "If i have faith great enough to move mountains and have not love then i am nothing" Faith on it own =nothing
@gtepp031387 John 6 is not about communion. Eating flesh and drinking blood is having faith in his atonement. I don't understand your sentence about thief. please restate question.
@Jere616 Re the thief: I asked was the thief promised heaven? why did Christ constantly use the greek word for heaven but when it came to the thief why did he say a work he had never spoken in all the words we have from him in the gospels?
@gtepp031387 Whether Jesus used a different word than heaven, He still said the thief would be with him there that day. So Jesus went to Paradise, so did the thief. Unless you believe Jesus went to purgatory that day and he called it Paradise. Paradise was the Septuagint word for the Garden of God, not a place of burning. Paul also said he visited Paradise in a vision in 2 Cor 12.
@Jere616 stipulation on it. 5th Purgatory is biblilcal i can find u much scripture on it. 6th this IS my body this IS my blood there is no debate it is not a symbol it IS as christ says himself(read St Ignatious on the body and blood) 7th Penance is nessasary repent...for the salvation of ur souls (peter)
@gtepp031387 Purgatory cannot be found in scripture as such, otherwise good thief would not have been told by Jesus that he would be with him today in Paradise. Penance adds to plain forgiveness. The publican in Luke 18 went home justified after only praying his confession to God. John tells believers that if they confess they will be forgiven. Penance not added. But, it doesn't matter to RCs that they add to or subtract or modify the Bible at their whim. There is more I can bring up too.
@Jere616 Purgatory is scriptural as Jesus himself tells us about a place where we will not be let go "untill we have paid every last cent" And paul tells us there are levels of heaven. And Jesus tells us there is lower and higher stations in heaven. And pauls tells us that are sinns shall be burn away from us with fire and what is good shall remain. Peter also says much the same!
@gtepp031387 Please list the scriptures on Purgatory as the place of fire gone to by believers after death.
IS is used metaphorically. If I point to a picture of my father and say "this is my father" you would not find that unusual, and you CERTAINLY would not say that the picture is transubstantiated into my father would you? So, IS is a metaphorical use here. The language does not prevent that at all.
@Jere616 Re Purgatory: "for no one can lay a foundation other than the one that there is, namely, Jesus Christ. If anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay or straw, the work of each one will come to light, for the Day will disclose it. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire [itself] will test the quality of each one's work. If the work stands that someone built upon the foundation, that person will receive a wage. But if someone's work
@Jere616 It will be revealed with fire, and the fire [itself] will test the quality of each one's work. If the work stands that someone built upon the foundation, that person will receive a wage... the person will be saved, but only through fire." (1 Corinthians 3:11-15) where does this fire that Paul speaks of come into YOUR viewpoint??
@gtepp031387 The works of a man will be judged by fire. They are likened to a house built of various materials, wood hay stubble or gold silver gems. If our works are made of fleshly material like a begrudging attitude, they will be lost. if made of spiritual things like love and faith they will survive. The person who has loss is likened to a man running out of a burning house, not that he himself is burning. The state of Lazarus' works are unknown,but we know he was comforted immediately.
@gtepp031387 God chastens us here in our earthly lives through trials and temptations. "Now all chastisement for the present indeed seems not to bring with it joy, but sorrow: but afterwards it will yield, to them that are exercised by it, the most peaceable fruit of justice." (Heb. 12:11). It says in the verse chastening is "for the present," not after death. The record of Job, Abel, Jeremiah, David, Paul, Joseph, Stephen, Lazarus the beggar, etc all bear this truth out.
@gtepp031387 Secondly, if purgatory is meant in this verse, then it would be possible for all men to get out of hell eventually when they have "paid their uttermost farthing" too. But, orthodox teaching does not allow that possibility of all men being restored, so the example does not lend itself to that doctrine.
@Jere616 So then u can not explain this verse then but to say it cant preain to heaven or hell well.........I think that analogy speaks for itself as it pretains to niether so what then does this verse prtain to hummmmmmmmmmm..........
@gtepp031387 Until you pay every last penny is a metaphorical way of saying you're not getting out because how do you come up with something of value in this so-called "purgatory," to repay the debt you owe? After all, you are no longer in the body and any practical means of repentance is taken from you in death.
Further, you have not explained the immediate comforts of Lazarus the beggar after his death. Why didn't he suffer for his "venial" sins after death?
@Jere616 all practical means well for GOD all things are possible i hope we at least agree on this?I do not say that at first they may be comferted or that the time of events is in ur favor as u claim as for GOD all things are possible he could have endured pain and fire for a thousand years but in reality it happened in ablink of an eye.As i said b4 heaven is a mystery as is purgatory it was anonced to us by the spirit of truth and so we accept it and do not question what we have not bin given
@gtepp031387 They are mysteries to RCS because of not simply accepting what the clear statements of the Lord in Luke. If purgatory is real, the death of Lazarus or the good thief was a perfect place to show it, but it doesn't. You have to insert purgatory arbitrarily in order to protect the doctrine. Doctrines don't need protection or invoking a "God-can-do-anything" argument. I don't see how you will ever see it differently no matter what. But, you seem sincere in your opinion.
@Jere616 Well as u believe in sola scriptura and sola fide i wouldnt point fingers at doctrin that is not clearly stated in the bible. What i hope u can agree on is it is by GRACE and submition of ones free will that we are saved. Not of works or of faith as both are gifts of GRACE and anyone that claims they have done either and boasts of either has not correctly heard the message. Submition is us telling GOD we are not good enough to achieve salvation on our own and this we can boast of.
@gtepp031387 I am pleased to agree with you that Grace is the foundation of both faith and the works that accompany faith. But, I am neither RC or a Protestant. I am a Christian. As to Sola Sciptura, it comes down to what you trust for your soul's welfare. I trust the inspired writers, RCs trust more than them. I see too many discrepancies and modifications from the prophets and apostles for me to trust my soul to the RC Magesterium.
@Jere616 Trust ur soul to the spirit(Grace) that has a greater athority then the written word for what is the written word without the spirit can u understand the word without it can u follow it without it are u even capable to read it without the spirit? I follow the spirit(GRACE) which gives us all truth all knowledge all salvation comes from the spirit which is sent as a gift from the father and son to give us truth and rightiousness beliefe and faith and works. It has also left Peter in
@Jere616 authority to tend the one flock and feed the one flock and to bind and loose and to hold the keys so if u are asking if i follow Peter yes becaues it is the will of the spirit not mine and yes i follow thoes who posses great GRACE and truth becaues they are one with him who gave all things. but do i follow all ideas that spring from so called catholics? No some have not the spirit of truth but the spirit of the evil one but as for Peter his "faith may not fail"
@Jere616 and he will strengthen his brothers not he of coures, that is to say not his flesh, but the great abundance of GRACE(holy spirit) that was given to him so that he would never have the gates of hell prevail against the church.
@gtepp031387 When i came to the Lord in 1975, I received the Spirit as well, for He opened my eyes for the first time so that I could understand the Scriptures as it says in Luke 24. Before that, the bible was a confusing and uninteresting book. After I gave my life to Jesus, the first time I opened the bible I understood everything I read. It was a gift of understanding.
Jesus is teaching on the deeper meaning of "thou shalt not kill" in verses 21-26. He warns that murder is of the heart, not just the outward act. He shows that unjust anger or showing such contempt that we refuse to right our wrong against someone would make us guilty of "murder of the heart." 1 John 3:15 says that no murderer has eternal life. So, these verses are warnings about why people go to hell, just as the next are about adultery of the heart putting someone in hell.
@Jere616 And anything u have a problem with in the catholic church remember that we were given the ability to bind and loose. Whatever we bind(find unacceptible) on earth shall be bound in heaven and whaterever we loose(find acceptible) shall be loosed in heaven. The LORD said this to the apostal did he not and to Peter in private. Since we (and the orthodox thoe they do not follow Peter) have all apostolic successores we alone have the ability to bind and loose
in order for the church to reject the sola scripture idea would place the church above Gods word.... no person or church can be above Gods word.... this guy asking the question shows us that he is nothing but a white washed tomb.... he makes a point from a twisted catholic view point.... he is pushing a lie in clear opposition to the truth of scriptures...
this guy is a joke and makes a fool of him self.....hes a sad case
When Jesus began by saying "it is written" did he go one to quote anything other than scripture. Did Jesus quote from historic writings of early Jewish fathers who lived during the lifetimes of the Old Testament writers? The answer to both questions is NO! Wake up people.
It is generally accepted, however, that the teachings of Christendom today are not identical with those of the first-century Christians. Jesus repeatedly cited the Scriptures as authoritative, often prefacing his points by saying: It is written. Indeed, when Jesus spoke about mans marital situation, he drew, not upon Greek philosophical conjecture, but upon the Genesis account of creation.
Yeah, all these Catholic vids about "sola scriptura" miss the point totally. It's not that no other knowledge in the world exists other than what's in the Bible - we might say that "koine greek" is a "tradition" that the Bible depends on - it's that no source of inspired moral or spiritual teaching exists other than the Bible. All they need to do to prove us wrong is simply recite their "oral tradition" they're always talking about. But they can't. SS isn't even a doctrine, it's a historic fact.
It's a historical fact without even a shred, any, anything of documentation? That is a very weak case. We are not talking about infant baptism here...we are talking about the supposedly central tenet of christianity other than sola fide.
And yet there remains zero evidence that anyone, anywhere believed such things.
As I said, for all Trinitarian Christians, it is a settled fact that there is no preserved body of inspired words handed on to us from Christ or the apostles other than the Bible itself. That is the essence of "sola scriptura," even though we needed no word for such a self-evident fact until 1500 or so. To prove us wrong, simply recite your "oral tradition," which must be words preserved in precise form from 33 A.D. to now.
As I've tried to make clear, CC, we don't NEED to prove SS. YOU need to prove Sola Ecclessia. All we're saying is that the Bible is the only bunch of words we possess that've been passed on Jesus in pure form. That would be easy enough to disprove, if you possessed other words. You claim that the Church has secret teachings, in essence, and can decide more. But this claim is from your secret teachings...it's circular! Verify the existence of your secret teachings by reciting them.
In YOUR opinion you are absolved of proving that anyone, ever, believed or utilized as a normative manner of discerning the truth of Jesus Christ the sole usage and authority of scripture.
You must prove these things, the same things which you state against the Church can be utilized against you as well.
Show to me the historical example that you demand of me the teachings which separates prots from the Church or else it is simply your view against those closest to the apostles and Christ.
We won't prove those things, because we never claimed them. Jesus preached. That's recorded in the Bible! Of course people listened to Jesus and the apostles (these people did make liberal use of scripture, but the living Christ is the living Christ). We never said that truth was never spoken or revealed in all sorts of manners (dreams, visions, etc.). But where do we have it all preserved for us NOW? Unless you believe the book of Mormon or the Koran, the Bible's all we have.
Again, if you want to disprove that inspired teachings exist only in the Bible, just recite your oral tradition, which is what you point to as your supplement. If such an oral tradition existed, it would be clearly-defined and preserved. If you could produce the actual oral tradition - NOT various catechisms that just purport to summarize it, as interpreted by the authors - we could examine it, compare it to scripture, subject it to historical analysis and scrutiny.
Once again, you must provide the same level of proof, within either the scripture itself, or an external source, directly from God, to justify what you call the Bible. Once again, there a large number of scrolls, used openly across the christian (Catholic) world at the time. 50 gospels, 50 epistles, several apocolypse, ect.
And what justifies you denying the right of protestants today who subtract sum 20-28 books from what you take for granted as the "Bible" today?
Please provide quotes from pre-nicene apostolic fathers from all these various gospels and epistles that show how these poor saps were confused about which gospels were real until the Pope stepped in and set everyone straight - and when, exactly, the Pope did so. 50 seems like an awfully round #. All these "gospels" you speak of were gnostic myths cut from a whole other cloth than the Jewish gospels. The most credible "other" book that could have even been considered from the BIble apart from
the books that are already in it is the craptastic "Epistle of Barnabas," an anti-Semitic diatribe that said the Old Testament predicted the crucifixion because a Hebrew letter looks like a T.
I will engage you in three areas, logic, scripture, and historicity. For either of us to make a feasible and plausible argument, there must be at least some overlap amongst all of these areas. There would literally have to be in the case of scripture, or else all followers were incorrect, for history would also follow in this case, scripture in many areas for the same reasons. Logic is utilized to make sense of questions...just as sacred tradition did for 1,500 yrs, before luther, to today.
Okay, I am slightly beyond the largest and most oppressive aspects of schooling for a few days. I would actually engage you in this dialgoue of sorts if you desire. I reject your assumption of not needing to prove sola scriptura. That is in all actuality a laughable claim as several protestant movements today claim the "original" Bible to hold between anywhere from 25-28 fewer books than the traditional Catholic Holy Bible.
You're obviously including Mormons, JWs, Christian Science, and weird cults of 45 people led by messiahs named Fred in walled compounds as "Protestants." I reject that categorization - unless you're simply dividing the entire human race into "catholic" and "not," and expect me to speak for the whole human race.
Once again, we are not speaking of your, or anybody else's interpetation of what a protestant is. We are speaking of sola scripture.
All of these people utilize one variation or another of sola scriptura when arriving at their (heretical) doctrines (or lack thereof) and also that is what fragments them as well.
The people in question are well within the spectrum of protestantism. They just claim the guidance of the Holy Spirit has led them to 26 books less than you.
Hey, if you want to label the entire rest of the human race "protestants," then that's your business. I don't go by that definition.
Mormons, Moonies, etc. all got additional "revelation" through their prophets. They are as far from Sola Scriptura as it's possible to be! JWs use a deliberately mistranslated Bible. They are led by an authoritarian institution that wants to control people for their own gain....just like the RCC!
Question, where is the list of books, directly from God, in which details which books, are to be included, in the Bible? If you cannot provide this, you must immediately violate sola scriptura, and rely on sacred tradition, of which the only church in existence at that period would be inevitably...the Catholic Church, as can be quite clearly and easily documented.
Can this convolution of sola scriptura be explained?
No, there is nothing convoluted about it. The codex is a human invention. The books were written as separate scrolls. If God gives you three green marbles, and you simply state, "these are the 3 green marbles from on high," you haven't made them marble or green. You've added nothing to them. If someone were to say, "but there is also a red marble that's from God," it is up to him to produce the red marble. So produce your red marble - your "oral tradition" - and we can examine it.
Once again, you evade the question because you are intelligent enough to know that your sola scriptura fallacy has just been exposed, and destroyed without very much effort at all.
The problem isn't whether there was a selection of books, but how do you or they then know which books to include?
It's obvious that your philosophical system (not theological) cannot answer this question without abandoning sol scriptura and acknowledging traditon of one sort or another.
Hardly. As I've said, there are no credible books for inclusion in the Bible aside from the ones that are already in it. The church took the books that the apostles and close associates wrote. The Bible exists in the context of broader human knowledge, such as the historical evidence of who wrote which books. You can call that "tradition." Knowledge of koine Greek (or literacy in general) are also "traditions" on which the Bible depends. But such knowledge is not "inspired" like the Bible.
No credible books? Once again you are confronted with the reality that many churches utilized a wide array of books which are today inlcuded and many of which are not.
Your answer is simply not historical (like sola scriptura) nor truthful.
As you then admit that utilizing the scripture requires knowledge and human traditions which exist externally from the scripture is an obvious admition of defeat.
Again, you're exaggerating. No one regarded Thomas or Judas as anything but frauds. One wonders why a heretic like Marcion, who REJECTED books that other Christians used, ended up with a list of NT books that doesn't include a single extra book in it, if he was starting with a list of "hundreds" of gospels, epistles, etc. that other Christians were then using. And how can we trust a "magisterium" that lets Christians read crap like Barnabas or Infancy Gospel of James for CENTURIES?
Think about this...there were books as bad as the Gospel of Thomas, which said that women must spiritually become men, or which taught stuff about gnostic archons and the Demiurge, and your "magisterium" let Christians study these books as Scripture for CENTURIES before the ROMAN EMPEROR insisted they narrow the list? Ridiculous! If what you say is true, then the "magisterium" failed irredeemably right from the start.
Interesting that you when it suits you, you lay your trust in the early church fathers to decide the canon of scripture for you, when you have never read half of the claimed scriptures that they did but then reject more or less every other sacred tradition of scriptural understanding that they beleived!
Keep in mind, several of them learned from the Apostle John or his student Polycarp, Ireneaus, Ignatius ect.
Nonsense...you mean what you write? You don't appeal to Clement, Iraneaus, or Ignatius much, except when you misquote them or ignore what they say (like Clement's statement that bishops are elected by the whole church...when is the last time YOU voted for a bishop?). You like people like Augustine and Cyprian, who are as far from Jesus in language, culture, and time as Hugo Chavez is from William Wallace!
And if you admit a second traditon (B) to embellish your claim to (A), or better yet, you have no basis to A without B and therefore A cannot be A combined with B and remain A. This is a simple fact, not an opinion but fact.
Therefore it is an absolute rejection of sola scriptura, and that is of course before even mentioning scripture. I am going to continue to lay waste to sola scriptura just from logic tomorrow.
No, it's a rejection of the RCC's poor use of language and logical category mistakes. As I said, the Bible does depend on some human "traditions," such as literacy, knowledge of Hebrew and koine Greek, etc. This just means that the Bible exists in the broader context of human knowledge. A Greek dictionary, however, is not "inspired." Sola S means that the Bible has unique moral and spiritual authority. The "authority" of outside knowledge is not the same kind of authority.
Once again we see you redefining the field of play for your accord and usage. Some traditions? Are you saying that our knowledge of scripture depends upon history?
And not the direct intervention of the Holy Spirit? You are clearly then stating that you cannot know for certain which scripture is inspired.
Also, you just rejected history as having relevence just a few posts ago when discerning doctrine, truths, ect.
But as I said then, and now, you clearly change opinions to suit you.
As a point of fact, I cannot prove a universal negative - in this case, that some other inspired body of knowledge may exist aside from what is in the canon. NO ONE CAN PROVE A UNIVERSAL NEGATIVE. IT IS ILLOGICAL TO ASK THAT. For you to prove that some other body of knowledge exists, you must demonstrate it. Show me your preserved "oral tradition," the very words that Jesus spoke outside of the Bible that the RCC passes on orally. Quote just a paragraph or two. But you can't! It doesn't exist!
Here we go again, you claim that sola scriptura does need to be proven logically, historically, nor scripturally.
Which of course is cover for you considering that even the concept would have been openly rejected.
But we do not have silence on the issue which could possibly provide cover you but affrimative statements of the church, and nothing but statements which absolutely contradict you.
Sola Scriptura doesn't need to be proven, between the two of us. We both accept that the Bible is inspired. You then go on to assert that there is this other body of knowledge, which all of you describe as "oral tradition." YOU ARE MAKING THE POSITIVE ASSERTION - THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU. All I'm asking for is for you demonstrate this oral tradition by quoting it. If you can post an MP3 with preserved, recited words of Jesus, then we can examine it.
It does have to be proven, you are arguing it and I, and the entirety of christianity until the heretical concept came into fruition with Martin Luther, taking into account a few disparate heretics prior to.
I can provide a wide array of logical reasoning, historical examples, et for a magisterium ect.
I am not doing that, I am not playing into the game.
The fact remains that you cannot provide even historical example of when it was practides besides heretics. Not one!
"Appeal to authority" is a formal logical error - if you accept the basics of logic as a science, then your claims for a magisterium are dead before they even get out of the gate. You try to get outside logic by saying that the Magisterium has magic power from God that makes their words infallible even as their actions are demonic. Sorry, I don't buy that. Rev. Moon, Joseph Smith, Mohammad, and every charlatan since time began says the same thing about themselves.
Once again from a purely logical perspective. Which is more likely?
1. Christ creates a spiritual church, without authority over faith and morals, truth can contradict, views of justification and salvation itself can contradict.
or
2. Christ created one Church, with authority in matters of faith and morals, truth cannot contradict, doctrine cannot contradict.
You are confusing categories of authority. The fact that the church limited the Bible to the writings of the apostles and labeled it "the canon" or measure is obvious - that Bible is the rule book. Sure, deacons and elders have administrative authority - but one that's limited by the Bible, and is of a fundamentally different kind and type. They do not have authority to make stuff up.
You are also making a simple category mistake by lumping various other Christians into a category with....
...(cont.) with Mormons, JWs, Unitarians, etc. You are saying that Baptists don't agree with Mormons? What is your point? Catholics also do not agree with Mormons.
Catholics, in fact, do not agree with other Catholics. The Pope speaks "ex cathedra" rarely, and there are liberal Catholics, Cultural Catholics, folk Catholics, etc. Your internal disagreements are wider than the disagreements between Pentecostals and Lutherans. Your unity is meaningless.
Once again I have to ask whether you 2,000 years later in your bedroom have a better understanding of the faith than those who learned directly from the apostle John, his disciple Polycarp, Ireneus, Ignatius, Justin Martyr ect, lived in this intricate church community, spoke these same langauges, walked in the same culture which denounced heresy.
You need to learn basics of words. When you use a word like "authority," you can't simply equate all types of authority as the same thing. An authority on teeth whitening is not an authority like the Prime Minister of Britain. In the same way, the authority of church officers is not the same as the authority of scripture - the thought that they can be equated is ridiculous. Sola scriptura means that the Bible is the only inspired authority. You can't demonstrate any other source of inspiration.
I am not patronizing you. You yourself cannot demonstrate any assurance that scripture is true. To you, it has its authority because it was picked by the magisterium. How is that a proof of the magisterium? It's more like an argument against Christianity, in toto. Do you think that we'll be so afraid of a godless universe that we'll accept with no proof at all that the RCC is infallible, just because you can raise a hypothetical question about the canonicity of Jude?
How has anything you've said offered one shred of proof for the RCC? We already know from history that bishops in a line of apostolic succession do not have the magic power to pick the right books. We know this cuz your Orthodox cousins picked different OT books. At the very least, 2 of the 3 "apostolic" traditions are wrong! Why suppose any are right - other than cuz it satisfies a craven need to not think for oneself? You are just assuming the RCC is right. You have no proof.
Again, if there was a serious question about the main body of the canon and hundreds of books were being used until the Church - prodded by the emperor - set the record straight, then the church failed for 4 centuries! Thomas, Judas, Infancy Gospel, etc. are all GROSSLY heretical. If the magisterium let the faithful read that as scripture, the magisterium failed. You can't have it both ways. Either the main body of the canon was always used, or the Church is a flop.
Grossly heretical and yet several churches utilized them. They are only grossly heretical within the context of you assuming the correctness, orthadoxy, and comprehensive nature of the Bible today...after it was handed to you by the Roman Catholic Church.
I might add that every individual who handed it to you adhered to this institution also.
If your "magisterium" let churches base their teachings on crap like the infancy Gospel of James for more than 3 centuries before the Roman emperor made them set the record straight, then your "infallible" church failed and can't be trusted. Glad we've established that. The Roman Catholic Church is a flop from its supposed beginning...as if we needed any more convincing.
What I often find interesting is that often people like Cyril are quoted as referencing scripture as in, sola scriptura is being utilized. But they forget he bases this preaching upon the Catholic Church's infallible authority.
Which is why he preaches mass as sacrifice, prugatory, expiatory prayers for the dead, sacraments, intercession of the saints, holy orders, communion, baptismal regeneration, ect.
You know, I haven't honestly read Cyril, but he's pretty far from Christ chronologically, and I also find that most of you guys seriously misquote your "fathers," so I'm not going to worry much about it.
It still does nothing to even address how you church failed so miserably by letting you all believe that Jesus had divine sister named Sophia and came to rescue our souls from cyclic reincarnation until the Roman emperor forced them to set us straight - and that's if what you say is true.
Wikipedia says that Cyril denied original sin, held that the resurrection wasn't corporeal, and that many of his writings plainly speak of the Eucharist as symbolic. Of course, you'll pick and choose the sentences you like and brand them "tradition," even as stark heresy is printed two sentences away - or even in the same sentence as the words you like!
Sorry, Cyril did not speak of the eucharist as symbolic, that is flatly incorrect. I will now move on to show how ridiculously incorrect you are regarding Irenaeus.
I am not attempting to offer proof of the Church, I am clearly only focusing on one aspect of sola scriptura which is simply that it has not basis in history.
I could provide literally pages and pages of evidence proclaiming peter's primacy, apostolic succession, teaching authority, evidence through Peter's actions, authority of the Popes ect through the historical Church.
But I am not doing that right now. I will now, after showing how fraudulent and contradictory you are move on.
Those writings don't establish your doctrine. We don't even begin to get anything resembling the rudiments of Catholic doctrine until we get to Cyprian, and many of the letters attributed to him are believed to be medieval forgeries. Cyprian, Augustine, etc. are as far from Jesus as Barack Obama is from Queen Elizabeth...they are not "early Christians." You misquote and distort people like Irenaeus, Clement, and Ignatius cuz that's all you can do.
Your claim of Ireneaus "shooting down" tradition is patently false. He is merely claiming the tradition resides purely within the sphere of the Catholic Church he gave supreme authority over matters of faith and morals.
The sacred tradition was alive and well as of his writings, not to mention his learning under John of the Gospel and Polycarp!
What an absolutely fraudulent claim you have just made. Was he not aware of scared tradition at the time he wrote against heresies? He was.
I see that, having been beaten, you are now resorting to just posting lies in such volume that I can't adequately respond in 500-character-limit posts. What early Christian writings will you cite? Against Heresies, which shoots down Petrine Supremacy and oral tradition if you read it in its full context? The Didache, which teaches adult baptism? The Letter of Ignatius, which also rules out Petrine Supremacy if you read it in its full context? Tertulllian, who shoots down infant baptism?
No, you will cite bits and pieces of these writings that are taken out of context, all while leaning on much-later writings by highly-speculative and less-Biblical writers like Augustine (although even these writers made many statements that don't square with your dogma). And you will NEVER, EVER recite a single sentence of your "oral tradition" to prove that it exists! You'll simply try to bury me under your mis-quotes and hope I'll forget about it. Nope. PLEASE QUOTE YOUR ORAL TRADITION NOW!
"Today we have observed the Lord's Holy day, in which we have read your letter (Pope Soter). Whenever we do read it (in church), we shall be able to profit thereby, as also we do when we read the earlier letter written to us by Clement."-Dionysius
"Ignatious...to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father."-Ignatius
Even more damning is that Ireaneus is writing to the gnostics and informing them that the reason that they cannot make a claim such as oral tradition is that it is due to them not being able to trace their roots to the apostles.
Notice what is said, if a church cannot trace it's roots clearly back to an apostle it is invalid. Please tell me which protestant group, sect, or church can trace it's historical heritage to an apostle?
I would love to hear this or even a teaching traced back.
So you admit that Irenaeus was writing to gnostics and that his arguments fit into that context. Good. So much for using him as evidence for your "oral tradition." Also note that he only talks about oral traditions in the church to disprove that Gnostics trace back to the apostles - he begins by noting that it's futile to argue the Bible with them because they don't accept it. HE BELIEVED THE BIBLE WAS SUPREME. We can all trace ourselves to the apostles, don't even bother.
We can trace ourselves to the apostles in the substance of our teaching, of course, but we can even play your game. The Anglicans have "valid holy orders" in your view cuz they got it from the Polish National Catholics. The Methodists have it because they got it from the Mar Thomas Christians in India (and possibly from Greek Orth bishop Erasmus, too). These groups, in turn, bestowed recognition of the ordinations of virtually all Trinitarian Protestant groups. Even your pope cannot nullify
the validity of holy orders bestowed by any other bishop in a line of apostolic succession, however that bishop chooses to bestow it. (I'm arguing as if your "apostolic succession" ideas are true, which they aren't, cuz Clement and others simply spoke of "apostolic succession" as the apostles' teachings, not some magic mojo.) So virtually any pastor in a trinitarian church of any type has valid "apostolic succession," if you bother to untangle it. So much for that.
"This is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyreans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter."-Tertullian
Substance of your teaching? And how do you discern that? By your personal interpretation. Exactly.
The problem though is that every single early church father strictly adhered to the real presence of Christ in the eucharist and yet you deny it.
Once again we see that when it comes between those who learned from apostles, their disciples or lived in the early cultures, and church communities it ends up that amazingly you have a better understanding and superior grasp of christian truth.
The fact that you could even possibly read that excrutiatingly lucid and comprehensive statement and come away with a belief that Irenaeus preached sola scriptura tells me all that I must know about you.
It is literally impossible to come away with such a conclusion if staying with honesty. You are simply that, dishonest at best.
Heck, even Martin Luther, the first true protestant who of course began promulating several doctrines which were virtually unknown beyond heretical quarters extracted 4 books from the Old Testament such as James, Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation.
And just as today several protestant groups today extract even more than that. I recently read an add for a protestant Bible in which contains 49 books!
Just letting you know, my classes, along with jobs, and a crippled girlfriend cause me to probably not be able to go online more than a few minutes at a time for the next week.
Luther did no such thing. That "epistle of straw" comment was just an assessment of the doctrinal weight of these books compared to Paul's letters and the gospels. Your apologists are liars who just make stuff up, cuz that's the only strategy you have - lies. Your dogma is so absurd that you must vow to not think for yourself in order to believe it - that's the core of your religion, blind submission to sexually abnormal men in robes.
I have Luther's German translation on my iPhone, and it has all those books in it - it even includes your "deutero-canonical' books, too, simply grouped together with a comment that notes the widely-accepted view of Jerome and Melito that these books were devotional but not doctrinal - a prevalent view until you tried to "improve" the OT and ended up with an OT different from your Orthodox kin, who tried their own "improvement." Different OTs from 2 "apostolic" churches - what a joke.
A prevalent view? That was the first Bible in which they were removed! Another thing, what exactly did those christians utilize before the printing press came into existence for the sole purpose of printing a Catholic Bible?
I mean, after all, if christians adhered to the Bible alone, and yet there were only handwritten, very expensive Bibles, what did they utilize?
When you come back from nursing your girlfriend, I'm going to categorize you with Mormons and demand that you defend the Book of Mormon. Makes perfect sense - you both have priesthoods, hierarchies, infallible presidents, and mysterious sacraments, as well as additional revelation beyond the Bible, although at least the Mormons can prove theirs exists by quoting it! So...why do authoritarian, hierarchical religions add to the Bible? Why do you contradict the Bible's teachings and morals?
Strangely, all of you authoritarian priest-religions attack the Bible's teachings on sexuality and marriage. You Catholics debase marriage by making Mary "ever-virgin" when the Bible says the exact opposite, while your Mormon kin debase it by encouraging polygamy. In both religions, you reduce your women to servile breeders who put their bodies and health at risk to fill the world with more fascist priest-followers. You are both theocrats who despise democracy and freedom.
Not to mention the eucharist in which every single early father absolutely adhered to and yet people such as yourself place (if I am correct) assert that of course, they are all incorrect and yet you hold the true teaching.
The real presence is at the core of early christianity and yet it is denied. It is amazing.
Another point of fact, if you claim sola scriptura was the normative manner of discerning truth on matters of faith and morals a historical example must be provided.
It absolutely must be provided for if it is not provided and only clear examples of such a principle being rejected is available what does that state regarding the faith of some of the greatest christians in it's history?
A historical example, beyond heretics must be provided.
No, CatholicConversion, I do not need to do anything. There are, in fact, nice and juicy quotes from Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Jerusalem, and even from Iranaues and Augustine that all establish scripture as the rule and poo-poo "tradition." But you're just trying to evade the real issue - you do not have a preserved, defined "oral tradition" that you can cite, quote, and demonstrate. You have no preserved words from Jesus or the apostles. Without that, all you have is the Bible.
"succession of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us...anounced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of it's superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition."-Irenaeus
Patrick stop yelling. The infallible church creates false doctrines like purgatory, works salvation and saint worship/prayer? nah
blakodeel 1 month ago
Catholic Douay R. contains all 73 books, including the 7 Deutero-Canonical books (erroneously called Apocrypha by Protestants). These 7 books were included in the 1611 KJV, but Not in later KJV Bibles.
1946 Dead-sea scrolls, prove 7 DC books were used by the Jews in Alexandria.
Palestinian Jews did Not accept the 7 DC books for their version of Scriptures nor New Testament. Protestants base their Bible on this version which comes from a people who did Not accept Christ as Messiah.
StSimonMartyr 4 weeks ago
Again the dishonesty of Rome, No protestant says Jesus practiced sola scriptura or the apostles (In the new testament sense) Since the new testament was being composed. Now Jesus did practice it in the old testament sense when rebuking the occupants of the seat of Moses with scripture and their traditions of elders (Equivalence of Romes claims of tradition) in mark 7 now it was taught by the apostles but could not have been practice at the time of oral preaching but we don't deny oral preaching.
Onetruthrgv 3 months ago
"You have chosen to embrace the ultimate authority of Rome, and your choice was a fallible choice, and therefore anything that follows after that can have no more certainty..."
And James White follows Rome's decision that there should be 27 books in the New Testament. He can have no more certainty in his bible than his certainty in the fallible Catholic Church.
A brilliant point and one James White set himself up with. Madrid's point I discussed below was even better.
rugbycampo 4 months ago
Patrick Madrid's point regarding the canon of scripture is incredible!!! It demonstrates how inseperable tradition and scripture are. You can try to condermn the tradition the Catholic Church handed on when they determined the canon of scripture, but that would be condemning the Bible! That was a brilliant point that really makes you think outside the box.
rugbycampo 4 months ago
Where can I get this debate in it's entirety?
October31st1517 5 months ago
The Apostles were eyewitnesses of the Lord's earthly life and heard directly from Him. No one can come later and modify what those men knew. If they had not written down their knowledge for later generations, then we could not know definitively what to believe. Oral Tradition is faulty because there is no guide on the veracity of assertions made. So-called apostolic tradition is used to bring novel doctrines and interpretations to the church and cannot be trusted the same as Scripture.
Jere616 1 year ago
@Jere616 sad that u follow something that is a hericy i will ask u this did the apostals teach sola scriptura? Or sola fide? which is a word for word contridiction of the bible "NOT BY FAITH ALONE" JAMES 2:24
gtepp031387 1 year ago
@gtepp031387 You assume I'm a protestant. I'm not. nor roman catholic. I'm Christian who believes the bible as supreme authority of doctrine and practice. I recognize both faith and works are necessary. But faith comes first, then God changes us so that we can serve God as we should. RCs claim faith starts at infant baptism. I was baptized RC, but was trapped in sins until I came to Jesus at 23 outside of RC church and was born again.The bible minus apocrypha I knew was truth.
Jere616 1 year ago
@Jere616 Baptism is the first installment of the spirit of Grace and truth do u not believe this? And there is not Apocrypha in the bible even the Orthodox who split from the church in 1054 have the same bible as us it was not deemed apogrypha till the 15th century and that was done by the heritic Martin Luther who also wanted to through out the epistal of James as well. And just remember faith without works is dead not none existant faith alone can not save u!
gtepp031387 1 year ago
@gtepp031387 The apocrypha were written after the last prophet of the OT. None of those books was quoted by the Lord or apostles. Jesus referred to the Law, prophets and psalms. that's it. Second, the first installment of the grace of God and his truth is believing on the Lord Jesus who died for sins and that God had raised him from the dead. Baptism is a sign of believing that. Infants cannot believe therefore cannot receive God's life until they do when they're older.
Jere616 1 year ago
@Jere616 I am sorry u feal that way The LORD does not mention many books in the bible that does not mean they are not true and the whole bible including what u call the apograph was put together by the 1st century and many of the apostals still lived at that time so what u say is incorrect! U should study b4 u speak! And another thing find me ONE SINGLE PERSON b4 matin luther who thought being born again was anything besides baptism??????
gtepp031387 1 year ago
@gtepp031387 Paul makes it clear that a person is saved by believing the message. A person would not get baptized until afterward as a sign of faith, not as a means to gain it. As to the apocrypha, it was written in the inter-testamental period after the last prophet Malachi. They were bundled with the OT scriptures when the Jews translated their major writings for the Alexandrian library. That's all. Thanks for your concern.
Jere616 1 year ago
@Jere616 Ok so when John baptised did he make them show a sighn of faith? U know the Catholics have two differnet sacrements that deal with a type of baptism right? ever heard of confermation?
gtepp031387 1 year ago
@gtepp031387 John told people who were coming for baptism to repent and do works fitting for righteousness. I was confirmed too as RC. that sacrament symbolized the Holy Spirit baptizing people.
Jere616 1 year ago
@Jere616 And u turned away from the sacrements to follow a church that was founded by men? Sad i will pray for u
gtepp031387 1 year ago
@gtepp031387 I received God's life when I turned to Him in faith and not as an RC. I simply believed the Gospel and was saved from my sins for the first time ever. For all the sacraments I and everyone else my age I knew who took them so religiously, there wasn't a righteous person in the bunch. We all lived just as pagan as the non-believers or worse. Explain that if you can.
Jere616 1 year ago
@Jere616 If u do not turn twords GOD then it really doesnt matter how much u go to any church or fakley take the sacrements thoe u were inside the church it sounds to me like u and these people of ur age where never part of the church.
gtepp031387 1 year ago
@gtepp031387 Thank you. My point exactly. Yet RCs say infant baptism does make a person born again, and part of the church. Faith in Jesus is what makes anyone part of His church, despite church denomination. That is what I did. I receive his grace and live a new life by him now.
Jere616 1 year ago
@Jere616 Yes it does make u born again yet this is a gift from GOD that one must accept through there other gift from GOD freewill(GOD will never take away ur freewill) but if u do not accept the gift it is of no use to u.
gtepp031387 1 year ago
@gtepp031387 How does an external rite such as baptism impart a change to a person's spirit, especially when a person is not culpable at such an age nor able to exhibit evidence of a change? In the bible, faith always goes before baptism. With regard to infants then, on what grounds can baptism go before faith?
Jere616 1 year ago
@Jere616 baptism makes u able to presue sanctification making u children of GOD and setting u free but it does not take away ur free will, and if u choose to sin again then u become a slave to that sin infant baptism is a promise made by the parents to teach christ and is but the 1st installment of grace.
gtepp031387 1 year ago
@gtepp031387 It is not baptism that makes you able, it is faith in the Lord which prompts repentance that does. Baptism follows repentance, and is not the impartation of that enablement to be freed from sin. That is what happened to me.
Jere616 1 year ago
@Jere616 Yes and u were already baptised yes? I do not say it is impossible for faith can be its own baptism but what the church does is not wrong. And what do u believe the Catholic church teaches that contridicts the original apostals? Remember we put the bible together do u think we would put something in it that we teach or disagree with?
gtepp031387 1 year ago
@gtepp031387 some contradictions: Jesus forbade calling anyone father (Matt. 23:9); That Mary is a perpetual virgin (Matt. 1:25); That only certain Christians are saints (Romans 1:7; 1 Cor 1:2; Eph 1:1; Phil 1:1;); The elevation of Mary to Mediatrix; (1 Tim 2:5); That only certain believers are priests (1 Pet. 2:5; Rev 1:6); Purgatory for believers who die. (Luke 23:43); making communion more than a memorial (Luke 22:19) that a penance is necessary for absolution (1 john 1:9) Need more??
Jere616 1 year ago
@Jere616 1st Do u have a problem with calling Adam or Jacob or Abraham or many others father? If u do then u cant read the bible! 2nd Mary being a perpetual virgin does not contridict scripture find me the passage for this???? 3rd Yes the gate is narrow there are over a billion people who call themselves christians do u think they will all be saints? 4th Some are called to do preach the gospel in different ways dont understand ur point there is much scripture on priesthood and there is much
gtepp031387 1 year ago
@gtepp031387 Jesus forbade personally addressing someone on earth, (that is alive), as father, as you do to your priest. Mary had other children - Matthew 13:55-56 & Mark 6:3. and Joseph kept her a virgin UNTIL she had Jesus Matt 1:25. All believers are saints is clear from Scripture. RCs reserve the name for dead believers, Paul the apostle doesn't. Peter, whom you claim to follow the most, says the whole church are priests. "Is" is used to present a metaphor, not literal body and blood.
Jere616 1 year ago
@Jere616 Oh so now its on earth thats alive well lets look at scripture shall we does it not say that thoes who believe in christ "they have died and have bin buried with him" Mary having other children is false as u no not anything about greek as the word for brothers and sisters is the same as cousins and such! No the body and blood Is the body and blood this Is my flesh eat it all of u, well to bad Jesus didnt have one of thoes good old souther baptist ministers to tell the people it s
gtepp031387 1 year ago
@gtepp031387 You shall not address anyone on earth as father. period. The Greek word for brother can mean cousin, but is also means blood brother too, does it not? Andrew is Peter's brother or is that 'cousin?' or James and john were brothers or is that cousins? Jesus had other brothers. period. If Jesus meant transubstantiated bread and wine he would have used a different verb such as when the water was turned into wine at Cana. but he used the verb common for metaphor.
Jere616 1 year ago
@Jere616 Lets listen to the direct successore of the apostal John shall we "They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes." -St Ignatious- I think ill stick with one who knew the apostals face to face and knew what they taught
gtepp031387 1 year ago
@gtepp031387 You're welcome to stick with non-apostles on this matter. But, consider this, if communion is transubstantiated by an RC priest, it is transubstantiated in every service where it is partaken of. In other words, it cannot be only true among RCs, which is what they teach. However, Jesus did not say this will become my flesh and blood, but is. When he said that, he was still sitting there in his flesh with his blood still in him.
Jere616 1 year ago
@Jere616 I'll stick with the deposit of Faith and thoes who learned from the apostals first hand yes. And the communion in a sence can be administered from all that truely believe(thoe thoes who truly believe follow the apostals and there teachings handed down to the church) and follow GODs church but as the church has decreed that only one dedicated to GOD should administer the communion one who believed would follow this.
gtepp031387 1 year ago
@gtepp031387 is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved, but only through fire." (1 Corinthians 3:11-15) If you are to go with your opponent before a magistrate, make an effort to settle the matter on the way; otherwise your opponent will turn you over to the judge, and the judge will turn you over to the constable, and the constable throw you in into prison. I say to you, you will not be released until you have paid the last penny." (Luke 12:58-59)
gtepp031387 1 year ago
@gtepp031387 My son, do not disdain the discipline of the Lord or lose heart when reproved by him; for whom the Lord loves, he likewise disciplines; he scourges every son he acknowledges." (Proverbs 3:11-12 and Hebrews 12:6-7). "Everyone will be salted with fire." (Mark 9:49) "And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age, or in the age to come."
gtepp031387 1 year ago
@gtepp031387 (Matthew 12:32) This verse exemplifies that forgiveness is offered in the next life as well as this life, which Catholics argue is only possible if there is a state of purification.
gtepp031387 1 year ago
@gtepp031387 The next age is not after one's death, but when Jesus returns to earth. Even the apostle's creed states he will judge the living and the dead after he returns, not immediately after one's death. so 1 Cor. 3 is a reference to that time. 1 cor 3 states that the DAY will disclose the manner of one's work. The DAY is not purgatory, it is the day of his return.
Jere616 1 year ago
@gtepp031387 Those being forgiven in the next age refer to the people over whom Christ and his church will reign after his return, for he will establish his kingdom over the nations that live on earth at that time. It is they who may sin and be forgiven. It is the millennial reign. Rev. 20, Isaiah 65, Daniel 2, Zech 12-14, etc.
Jere616 1 year ago
@Jere616 As this is ur personal interpritation,and as u are not a bishop,(apostalic successore) ur interpritation can not be validated niether can ur churches as they have not one apostalic successore who where alone given the charge and authority to hold the teaching of christ.
gtepp031387 1 year ago
@gtepp031387 Views on millennialism are divided among the early church writers. I only brought it up with regard to purgatory. So, I will say that the doctrine of purgatory is the most muddled one I know of. No one knows how long a person is there, no one knows how many prayers it takes to get someone out, who actually has to go, or even what exactly it is. Yet, neither Lazarus the beggar or the good thief went there at their death. Why, if purgatory is certain.
Jere616 1 year ago
@Jere616 I have given u scripture on the subject, and purgatory for the most part, u are correct, is a mystery. So is most of heaven, i believe purgatory is heaven, thoe this is my own interpritation and i speak not for the church. But i believe purgatory is the first of the three, or seven levels(depending on how many levels u hold heaven has i know its a least three as paul says so himself) of heaven. Jesus says there will be higher and lower station for people in heaven and also many houses.
gtepp031387 1 year ago
@gtepp031387 Purgatory as a place one goes after death, a place of pain as official RC doctrine states, is contrary to the comforts of Paradise as Luke 16:24 “But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony." Lazarus was carried to his comfort by angels when he died. It is the rich man who suffers in fire. He is in fire, never Lazarus. Please explain Lazarus' comforts.
Jere616 1 year ago
@Jere616 My point is when the bible shows by example and Jesus' very words (to the good thief) what happens to the righteous immediately after death, the purgatory doctrine turns such clear teaching into a complete obscurity. This is but one clear example of what I mean that RC doctrines contradicts scripture.
Jere616 1 year ago
@Jere616 "all the dead shall be judged on there deeds" So u believe that by judging us GOD will place the one who has commited many grave sins in the same position in heaven to the one who has followed his word to the tee? Explain to me then how GOD is just and fair?
gtepp031387 1 year ago
@gtepp031387 Rewards of the righteous do vary, for that is what it says, "He shall reward every man according to his deeds." All I am saying is that at death, the righteous do not suffer the torments of flame even for a little time. This is what the biographies of Lazarus and the rich man show. Righteous Lazarus went to Paradise upon death, the wicked rich man to flames. The good thief went to Paradise too upon death with Jesus. These clear examples do not support the doctrine of purgatory.
Jere616 1 year ago
@Jere616 just a symbol he doesnt mean it mabey then many of his disiples wouldnt have "WALKED AWAY AND FOLLOW HIM NO MORE" Thief was he promised heaven why does Jesus constanly say heaven then to ther thief say another word? And the thief repented confessed loved these are works anyway. Penance is reconcilliation there is many way to have penance! "NOT BY FAITH ALONE" and "If i have faith great enough to move mountains and have not love then i am nothing" Faith on it own =nothing
gtepp031387 1 year ago
@gtepp031387 John 6 is not about communion. Eating flesh and drinking blood is having faith in his atonement. I don't understand your sentence about thief. please restate question.
Jere616 1 year ago
@Jere616 Re the thief: I asked was the thief promised heaven? why did Christ constantly use the greek word for heaven but when it came to the thief why did he say a work he had never spoken in all the words we have from him in the gospels?
gtepp031387 1 year ago
@gtepp031387 Whether Jesus used a different word than heaven, He still said the thief would be with him there that day. So Jesus went to Paradise, so did the thief. Unless you believe Jesus went to purgatory that day and he called it Paradise. Paradise was the Septuagint word for the Garden of God, not a place of burning. Paul also said he visited Paradise in a vision in 2 Cor 12.
Jere616 1 year ago
@Jere616 stipulation on it. 5th Purgatory is biblilcal i can find u much scripture on it. 6th this IS my body this IS my blood there is no debate it is not a symbol it IS as christ says himself(read St Ignatious on the body and blood) 7th Penance is nessasary repent...for the salvation of ur souls (peter)
gtepp031387 1 year ago
@gtepp031387 Purgatory cannot be found in scripture as such, otherwise good thief would not have been told by Jesus that he would be with him today in Paradise. Penance adds to plain forgiveness. The publican in Luke 18 went home justified after only praying his confession to God. John tells believers that if they confess they will be forgiven. Penance not added. But, it doesn't matter to RCs that they add to or subtract or modify the Bible at their whim. There is more I can bring up too.
Jere616 1 year ago
@Jere616 Purgatory is scriptural as Jesus himself tells us about a place where we will not be let go "untill we have paid every last cent" And paul tells us there are levels of heaven. And Jesus tells us there is lower and higher stations in heaven. And pauls tells us that are sinns shall be burn away from us with fire and what is good shall remain. Peter also says much the same!
gtepp031387 1 year ago
@gtepp031387 Please list the scriptures on Purgatory as the place of fire gone to by believers after death.
IS is used metaphorically. If I point to a picture of my father and say "this is my father" you would not find that unusual, and you CERTAINLY would not say that the picture is transubstantiated into my father would you? So, IS is a metaphorical use here. The language does not prevent that at all.
Jere616 1 year ago
@Jere616 Re Purgatory: "for no one can lay a foundation other than the one that there is, namely, Jesus Christ. If anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay or straw, the work of each one will come to light, for the Day will disclose it. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire [itself] will test the quality of each one's work. If the work stands that someone built upon the foundation, that person will receive a wage. But if someone's work
gtepp031387 1 year ago
@Jere616 It will be revealed with fire, and the fire [itself] will test the quality of each one's work. If the work stands that someone built upon the foundation, that person will receive a wage... the person will be saved, but only through fire." (1 Corinthians 3:11-15) where does this fire that Paul speaks of come into YOUR viewpoint??
gtepp031387 1 year ago
@gtepp031387 The works of a man will be judged by fire. They are likened to a house built of various materials, wood hay stubble or gold silver gems. If our works are made of fleshly material like a begrudging attitude, they will be lost. if made of spiritual things like love and faith they will survive. The person who has loss is likened to a man running out of a burning house, not that he himself is burning. The state of Lazarus' works are unknown,but we know he was comforted immediately.
Jere616 1 year ago
@Jere616 so spiritually not phisicaly we will be tested by fire? and GOD will not chastise us?
gtepp031387 1 year ago
@gtepp031387 God chastens us here in our earthly lives through trials and temptations. "Now all chastisement for the present indeed seems not to bring with it joy, but sorrow: but afterwards it will yield, to them that are exercised by it, the most peaceable fruit of justice." (Heb. 12:11). It says in the verse chastening is "for the present," not after death. The record of Job, Abel, Jeremiah, David, Paul, Joseph, Stephen, Lazarus the beggar, etc all bear this truth out.
Jere616 1 year ago
@Jere616 So U believe that one earth we are able to pay every last penny that we owe?
gtepp031387 1 year ago
@gtepp031387 sry "on earth" is what i meant to say
gtepp031387 1 year ago
@gtepp031387 Secondly, if purgatory is meant in this verse, then it would be possible for all men to get out of hell eventually when they have "paid their uttermost farthing" too. But, orthodox teaching does not allow that possibility of all men being restored, so the example does not lend itself to that doctrine.
Jere616 1 year ago
@Jere616 So then u can not explain this verse then but to say it cant preain to heaven or hell well.........I think that analogy speaks for itself as it pretains to niether so what then does this verse prtain to hummmmmmmmmmm..........
gtepp031387 1 year ago
@gtepp031387 I made two replies to you the last time. I did say it pertains to hell in the first of them, so what do you mean?
Jere616 1 year ago
@Jere616 so u believe that in hell we will be able to PAY every last penny we owe? so then u think hell justifies one?????
gtepp031387 1 year ago
@gtepp031387 Until you pay every last penny is a metaphorical way of saying you're not getting out because how do you come up with something of value in this so-called "purgatory," to repay the debt you owe? After all, you are no longer in the body and any practical means of repentance is taken from you in death.
Further, you have not explained the immediate comforts of Lazarus the beggar after his death. Why didn't he suffer for his "venial" sins after death?
Jere616 1 year ago
@Jere616 all practical means well for GOD all things are possible i hope we at least agree on this?I do not say that at first they may be comferted or that the time of events is in ur favor as u claim as for GOD all things are possible he could have endured pain and fire for a thousand years but in reality it happened in ablink of an eye.As i said b4 heaven is a mystery as is purgatory it was anonced to us by the spirit of truth and so we accept it and do not question what we have not bin given
gtepp031387 1 year ago
@gtepp031387 They are mysteries to RCS because of not simply accepting what the clear statements of the Lord in Luke. If purgatory is real, the death of Lazarus or the good thief was a perfect place to show it, but it doesn't. You have to insert purgatory arbitrarily in order to protect the doctrine. Doctrines don't need protection or invoking a "God-can-do-anything" argument. I don't see how you will ever see it differently no matter what. But, you seem sincere in your opinion.
Jere616 1 year ago
@Jere616 Well as u believe in sola scriptura and sola fide i wouldnt point fingers at doctrin that is not clearly stated in the bible. What i hope u can agree on is it is by GRACE and submition of ones free will that we are saved. Not of works or of faith as both are gifts of GRACE and anyone that claims they have done either and boasts of either has not correctly heard the message. Submition is us telling GOD we are not good enough to achieve salvation on our own and this we can boast of.
gtepp031387 1 year ago
@gtepp031387 I am pleased to agree with you that Grace is the foundation of both faith and the works that accompany faith. But, I am neither RC or a Protestant. I am a Christian. As to Sola Sciptura, it comes down to what you trust for your soul's welfare. I trust the inspired writers, RCs trust more than them. I see too many discrepancies and modifications from the prophets and apostles for me to trust my soul to the RC Magesterium.
Jere616 1 year ago
@Jere616 Trust ur soul to the spirit(Grace) that has a greater athority then the written word for what is the written word without the spirit can u understand the word without it can u follow it without it are u even capable to read it without the spirit? I follow the spirit(GRACE) which gives us all truth all knowledge all salvation comes from the spirit which is sent as a gift from the father and son to give us truth and rightiousness beliefe and faith and works. It has also left Peter in
gtepp031387 1 year ago
@Jere616 authority to tend the one flock and feed the one flock and to bind and loose and to hold the keys so if u are asking if i follow Peter yes becaues it is the will of the spirit not mine and yes i follow thoes who posses great GRACE and truth becaues they are one with him who gave all things. but do i follow all ideas that spring from so called catholics? No some have not the spirit of truth but the spirit of the evil one but as for Peter his "faith may not fail"
gtepp031387 1 year ago
@Jere616 and he will strengthen his brothers not he of coures, that is to say not his flesh, but the great abundance of GRACE(holy spirit) that was given to him so that he would never have the gates of hell prevail against the church.
gtepp031387 1 year ago
@gtepp031387 When i came to the Lord in 1975, I received the Spirit as well, for He opened my eyes for the first time so that I could understand the Scriptures as it says in Luke 24. Before that, the bible was a confusing and uninteresting book. After I gave my life to Jesus, the first time I opened the bible I understood everything I read. It was a gift of understanding.
Jere616 1 year ago
@Jere616 Perfectly said.
gtepp031387 1 year ago
@gtepp031387 Thank you.
Jere616 1 year ago
Jesus is teaching on the deeper meaning of "thou shalt not kill" in verses 21-26. He warns that murder is of the heart, not just the outward act. He shows that unjust anger or showing such contempt that we refuse to right our wrong against someone would make us guilty of "murder of the heart." 1 John 3:15 says that no murderer has eternal life. So, these verses are warnings about why people go to hell, just as the next are about adultery of the heart putting someone in hell.
Jere616 1 year ago
@Jere616 And anything u have a problem with in the catholic church remember that we were given the ability to bind and loose. Whatever we bind(find unacceptible) on earth shall be bound in heaven and whaterever we loose(find acceptible) shall be loosed in heaven. The LORD said this to the apostal did he not and to Peter in private. Since we (and the orthodox thoe they do not follow Peter) have all apostolic successores we alone have the ability to bind and loose
gtepp031387 1 year ago
@gtepp031387 Does the RC magesterium have the right to contradict what the original apostles wrote?
Jere616 1 year ago
@Jere616 sry last line "that we teach against"
gtepp031387 1 year ago
in order for the church to reject the sola scripture idea would place the church above Gods word.... no person or church can be above Gods word.... this guy asking the question shows us that he is nothing but a white washed tomb.... he makes a point from a twisted catholic view point.... he is pushing a lie in clear opposition to the truth of scriptures...
this guy is a joke and makes a fool of him self.....hes a sad case
loudmouthspeaker 1 year ago
When Jesus began by saying "it is written" did he go one to quote anything other than scripture. Did Jesus quote from historic writings of early Jewish fathers who lived during the lifetimes of the Old Testament writers? The answer to both questions is NO! Wake up people.
ttsqas 1 year ago
@TradCath123 There are actually now protestant sects that extract up to 26 books from the "Catholic Bible" as they like to say. 26 books!
It is heresy plain and simple.
CatholicConversion 2 years ago
It is generally accepted, however, that the teachings of Christendom today are not identical with those of the first-century Christians. Jesus repeatedly cited the Scriptures as authoritative, often prefacing his points by saying: It is written. Indeed, when Jesus spoke about mans marital situation, he drew, not upon Greek philosophical conjecture, but upon the Genesis account of creation.
Mark 7:6-13
issuecryer 2 years ago
Yeah, all these Catholic vids about "sola scriptura" miss the point totally. It's not that no other knowledge in the world exists other than what's in the Bible - we might say that "koine greek" is a "tradition" that the Bible depends on - it's that no source of inspired moral or spiritual teaching exists other than the Bible. All they need to do to prove us wrong is simply recite their "oral tradition" they're always talking about. But they can't. SS isn't even a doctrine, it's a historic fact.
xinosaj 2 years ago
It's a historical fact without even a shred, any, anything of documentation? That is a very weak case. We are not talking about infant baptism here...we are talking about the supposedly central tenet of christianity other than sola fide.
And yet there remains zero evidence that anyone, anywhere believed such things.
CatholicConversion 2 years ago
As I said, for all Trinitarian Christians, it is a settled fact that there is no preserved body of inspired words handed on to us from Christ or the apostles other than the Bible itself. That is the essence of "sola scriptura," even though we needed no word for such a self-evident fact until 1500 or so. To prove us wrong, simply recite your "oral tradition," which must be words preserved in precise form from 33 A.D. to now.
xinosaj 2 years ago
As I've tried to make clear, CC, we don't NEED to prove SS. YOU need to prove Sola Ecclessia. All we're saying is that the Bible is the only bunch of words we possess that've been passed on Jesus in pure form. That would be easy enough to disprove, if you possessed other words. You claim that the Church has secret teachings, in essence, and can decide more. But this claim is from your secret teachings...it's circular! Verify the existence of your secret teachings by reciting them.
xinosaj 2 years ago
In YOUR opinion you are absolved of proving that anyone, ever, believed or utilized as a normative manner of discerning the truth of Jesus Christ the sole usage and authority of scripture.
You must prove these things, the same things which you state against the Church can be utilized against you as well.
Show to me the historical example that you demand of me the teachings which separates prots from the Church or else it is simply your view against those closest to the apostles and Christ.
CatholicConversion 2 years ago
We won't prove those things, because we never claimed them. Jesus preached. That's recorded in the Bible! Of course people listened to Jesus and the apostles (these people did make liberal use of scripture, but the living Christ is the living Christ). We never said that truth was never spoken or revealed in all sorts of manners (dreams, visions, etc.). But where do we have it all preserved for us NOW? Unless you believe the book of Mormon or the Koran, the Bible's all we have.
xinosaj 2 years ago
Again, if you want to disprove that inspired teachings exist only in the Bible, just recite your oral tradition, which is what you point to as your supplement. If such an oral tradition existed, it would be clearly-defined and preserved. If you could produce the actual oral tradition - NOT various catechisms that just purport to summarize it, as interpreted by the authors - we could examine it, compare it to scripture, subject it to historical analysis and scrutiny.
xinosaj 2 years ago
Once again, you must provide the same level of proof, within either the scripture itself, or an external source, directly from God, to justify what you call the Bible. Once again, there a large number of scrolls, used openly across the christian (Catholic) world at the time. 50 gospels, 50 epistles, several apocolypse, ect.
And what justifies you denying the right of protestants today who subtract sum 20-28 books from what you take for granted as the "Bible" today?
What authority?
CatholicConversion 2 years ago
Please provide quotes from pre-nicene apostolic fathers from all these various gospels and epistles that show how these poor saps were confused about which gospels were real until the Pope stepped in and set everyone straight - and when, exactly, the Pope did so. 50 seems like an awfully round #. All these "gospels" you speak of were gnostic myths cut from a whole other cloth than the Jewish gospels. The most credible "other" book that could have even been considered from the BIble apart from
xinosaj 2 years ago
the books that are already in it is the craptastic "Epistle of Barnabas," an anti-Semitic diatribe that said the Old Testament predicted the crucifixion because a Hebrew letter looks like a T.
xinosaj 2 years ago
I will engage you in three areas, logic, scripture, and historicity. For either of us to make a feasible and plausible argument, there must be at least some overlap amongst all of these areas. There would literally have to be in the case of scripture, or else all followers were incorrect, for history would also follow in this case, scripture in many areas for the same reasons. Logic is utilized to make sense of questions...just as sacred tradition did for 1,500 yrs, before luther, to today.
CatholicConversion 2 years ago
Okay, I am slightly beyond the largest and most oppressive aspects of schooling for a few days. I would actually engage you in this dialgoue of sorts if you desire. I reject your assumption of not needing to prove sola scriptura. That is in all actuality a laughable claim as several protestant movements today claim the "original" Bible to hold between anywhere from 25-28 fewer books than the traditional Catholic Holy Bible.
So the inevitable question would be the canon.
CatholicConversion 2 years ago
You're obviously including Mormons, JWs, Christian Science, and weird cults of 45 people led by messiahs named Fred in walled compounds as "Protestants." I reject that categorization - unless you're simply dividing the entire human race into "catholic" and "not," and expect me to speak for the whole human race.
xinosaj 2 years ago
Once again, we are not speaking of your, or anybody else's interpetation of what a protestant is. We are speaking of sola scripture.
All of these people utilize one variation or another of sola scriptura when arriving at their (heretical) doctrines (or lack thereof) and also that is what fragments them as well.
The people in question are well within the spectrum of protestantism. They just claim the guidance of the Holy Spirit has led them to 26 books less than you.
CatholicConversion 2 years ago
Hey, if you want to label the entire rest of the human race "protestants," then that's your business. I don't go by that definition.
Mormons, Moonies, etc. all got additional "revelation" through their prophets. They are as far from Sola Scriptura as it's possible to be! JWs use a deliberately mistranslated Bible. They are led by an authoritarian institution that wants to control people for their own gain....just like the RCC!
xinosaj 2 years ago
Question, where is the list of books, directly from God, in which details which books, are to be included, in the Bible? If you cannot provide this, you must immediately violate sola scriptura, and rely on sacred tradition, of which the only church in existence at that period would be inevitably...the Catholic Church, as can be quite clearly and easily documented.
Can this convolution of sola scriptura be explained?
CatholicConversion 2 years ago
No, there is nothing convoluted about it. The codex is a human invention. The books were written as separate scrolls. If God gives you three green marbles, and you simply state, "these are the 3 green marbles from on high," you haven't made them marble or green. You've added nothing to them. If someone were to say, "but there is also a red marble that's from God," it is up to him to produce the red marble. So produce your red marble - your "oral tradition" - and we can examine it.
xinosaj 2 years ago
Once again, you evade the question because you are intelligent enough to know that your sola scriptura fallacy has just been exposed, and destroyed without very much effort at all.
The problem isn't whether there was a selection of books, but how do you or they then know which books to include?
It's obvious that your philosophical system (not theological) cannot answer this question without abandoning sol scriptura and acknowledging traditon of one sort or another.
You've been exposed.
CatholicConversion 2 years ago
Hardly. As I've said, there are no credible books for inclusion in the Bible aside from the ones that are already in it. The church took the books that the apostles and close associates wrote. The Bible exists in the context of broader human knowledge, such as the historical evidence of who wrote which books. You can call that "tradition." Knowledge of koine Greek (or literacy in general) are also "traditions" on which the Bible depends. But such knowledge is not "inspired" like the Bible.
xinosaj 2 years ago
No credible books? Once again you are confronted with the reality that many churches utilized a wide array of books which are today inlcuded and many of which are not.
Your answer is simply not historical (like sola scriptura) nor truthful.
As you then admit that utilizing the scripture requires knowledge and human traditions which exist externally from the scripture is an obvious admition of defeat.
Be a man and admit the obvious. Seriously.
CatholicConversion 2 years ago
Again, you're exaggerating. No one regarded Thomas or Judas as anything but frauds. One wonders why a heretic like Marcion, who REJECTED books that other Christians used, ended up with a list of NT books that doesn't include a single extra book in it, if he was starting with a list of "hundreds" of gospels, epistles, etc. that other Christians were then using. And how can we trust a "magisterium" that lets Christians read crap like Barnabas or Infancy Gospel of James for CENTURIES?
xinosaj 2 years ago
Think about this...there were books as bad as the Gospel of Thomas, which said that women must spiritually become men, or which taught stuff about gnostic archons and the Demiurge, and your "magisterium" let Christians study these books as Scripture for CENTURIES before the ROMAN EMPEROR insisted they narrow the list? Ridiculous! If what you say is true, then the "magisterium" failed irredeemably right from the start.
xinosaj 2 years ago
Interesting that you when it suits you, you lay your trust in the early church fathers to decide the canon of scripture for you, when you have never read half of the claimed scriptures that they did but then reject more or less every other sacred tradition of scriptural understanding that they beleived!
Keep in mind, several of them learned from the Apostle John or his student Polycarp, Ireneaus, Ignatius ect.
Pure nonsense.
CatholicConversion 2 years ago
Nonsense...you mean what you write? You don't appeal to Clement, Iraneaus, or Ignatius much, except when you misquote them or ignore what they say (like Clement's statement that bishops are elected by the whole church...when is the last time YOU voted for a bishop?). You like people like Augustine and Cyprian, who are as far from Jesus in language, culture, and time as Hugo Chavez is from William Wallace!
xinosaj 2 years ago
And if you admit a second traditon (B) to embellish your claim to (A), or better yet, you have no basis to A without B and therefore A cannot be A combined with B and remain A. This is a simple fact, not an opinion but fact.
Therefore it is an absolute rejection of sola scriptura, and that is of course before even mentioning scripture. I am going to continue to lay waste to sola scriptura just from logic tomorrow.
CatholicConversion 2 years ago
No, it's a rejection of the RCC's poor use of language and logical category mistakes. As I said, the Bible does depend on some human "traditions," such as literacy, knowledge of Hebrew and koine Greek, etc. This just means that the Bible exists in the broader context of human knowledge. A Greek dictionary, however, is not "inspired." Sola S means that the Bible has unique moral and spiritual authority. The "authority" of outside knowledge is not the same kind of authority.
xinosaj 2 years ago
Once again we see you redefining the field of play for your accord and usage. Some traditions? Are you saying that our knowledge of scripture depends upon history?
And not the direct intervention of the Holy Spirit? You are clearly then stating that you cannot know for certain which scripture is inspired.
Also, you just rejected history as having relevence just a few posts ago when discerning doctrine, truths, ect.
But as I said then, and now, you clearly change opinions to suit you.
CatholicConversion 2 years ago
As a point of fact, I cannot prove a universal negative - in this case, that some other inspired body of knowledge may exist aside from what is in the canon. NO ONE CAN PROVE A UNIVERSAL NEGATIVE. IT IS ILLOGICAL TO ASK THAT. For you to prove that some other body of knowledge exists, you must demonstrate it. Show me your preserved "oral tradition," the very words that Jesus spoke outside of the Bible that the RCC passes on orally. Quote just a paragraph or two. But you can't! It doesn't exist!
xinosaj 2 years ago
Here we go again, you claim that sola scriptura does need to be proven logically, historically, nor scripturally.
Which of course is cover for you considering that even the concept would have been openly rejected.
But we do not have silence on the issue which could possibly provide cover you but affrimative statements of the church, and nothing but statements which absolutely contradict you.
CatholicConversion 2 years ago
Sola Scriptura doesn't need to be proven, between the two of us. We both accept that the Bible is inspired. You then go on to assert that there is this other body of knowledge, which all of you describe as "oral tradition." YOU ARE MAKING THE POSITIVE ASSERTION - THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU. All I'm asking for is for you demonstrate this oral tradition by quoting it. If you can post an MP3 with preserved, recited words of Jesus, then we can examine it.
xinosaj 2 years ago
It does have to be proven, you are arguing it and I, and the entirety of christianity until the heretical concept came into fruition with Martin Luther, taking into account a few disparate heretics prior to.
I can provide a wide array of logical reasoning, historical examples, et for a magisterium ect.
I am not doing that, I am not playing into the game.
The fact remains that you cannot provide even historical example of when it was practides besides heretics. Not one!
CatholicConversion 2 years ago
"Appeal to authority" is a formal logical error - if you accept the basics of logic as a science, then your claims for a magisterium are dead before they even get out of the gate. You try to get outside logic by saying that the Magisterium has magic power from God that makes their words infallible even as their actions are demonic. Sorry, I don't buy that. Rev. Moon, Joseph Smith, Mohammad, and every charlatan since time began says the same thing about themselves.
xinosaj 2 years ago
Once again from a purely logical perspective. Which is more likely?
1. Christ creates a spiritual church, without authority over faith and morals, truth can contradict, views of justification and salvation itself can contradict.
or
2. Christ created one Church, with authority in matters of faith and morals, truth cannot contradict, doctrine cannot contradict.
Purely logically speaking.
CatholicConversion 2 years ago
You are confusing categories of authority. The fact that the church limited the Bible to the writings of the apostles and labeled it "the canon" or measure is obvious - that Bible is the rule book. Sure, deacons and elders have administrative authority - but one that's limited by the Bible, and is of a fundamentally different kind and type. They do not have authority to make stuff up.
You are also making a simple category mistake by lumping various other Christians into a category with....
xinosaj 2 years ago
...(cont.) with Mormons, JWs, Unitarians, etc. You are saying that Baptists don't agree with Mormons? What is your point? Catholics also do not agree with Mormons.
Catholics, in fact, do not agree with other Catholics. The Pope speaks "ex cathedra" rarely, and there are liberal Catholics, Cultural Catholics, folk Catholics, etc. Your internal disagreements are wider than the disagreements between Pentecostals and Lutherans. Your unity is meaningless.
xinosaj 2 years ago
Once again I have to ask whether you 2,000 years later in your bedroom have a better understanding of the faith than those who learned directly from the apostle John, his disciple Polycarp, Ireneus, Ignatius, Justin Martyr ect, lived in this intricate church community, spoke these same langauges, walked in the same culture which denounced heresy.
Do you? Really?
CatholicConversion 2 years ago
You need to learn basics of words. When you use a word like "authority," you can't simply equate all types of authority as the same thing. An authority on teeth whitening is not an authority like the Prime Minister of Britain. In the same way, the authority of church officers is not the same as the authority of scripture - the thought that they can be equated is ridiculous. Sola scriptura means that the Bible is the only inspired authority. You can't demonstrate any other source of inspiration.
xinosaj 2 years ago
Do not patronize me. I apparently have much greater grasp of this concept than you.
You simply cannot provide me with an assurance based on logic, history, nor scripture as to why your scriptures are inspired.
The notion that it was always known which were in the canon is a flat out lie or unbridled ignorance on your part.
It is just not true and I think that you know that also. A cursory reading of history should tell you that.
CatholicConversion 2 years ago
I am not patronizing you. You yourself cannot demonstrate any assurance that scripture is true. To you, it has its authority because it was picked by the magisterium. How is that a proof of the magisterium? It's more like an argument against Christianity, in toto. Do you think that we'll be so afraid of a godless universe that we'll accept with no proof at all that the RCC is infallible, just because you can raise a hypothetical question about the canonicity of Jude?
xinosaj 2 years ago
How has anything you've said offered one shred of proof for the RCC? We already know from history that bishops in a line of apostolic succession do not have the magic power to pick the right books. We know this cuz your Orthodox cousins picked different OT books. At the very least, 2 of the 3 "apostolic" traditions are wrong! Why suppose any are right - other than cuz it satisfies a craven need to not think for oneself? You are just assuming the RCC is right. You have no proof.
xinosaj 2 years ago
Again, if there was a serious question about the main body of the canon and hundreds of books were being used until the Church - prodded by the emperor - set the record straight, then the church failed for 4 centuries! Thomas, Judas, Infancy Gospel, etc. are all GROSSLY heretical. If the magisterium let the faithful read that as scripture, the magisterium failed. You can't have it both ways. Either the main body of the canon was always used, or the Church is a flop.
xinosaj 2 years ago
Grossly heretical and yet several churches utilized them. They are only grossly heretical within the context of you assuming the correctness, orthadoxy, and comprehensive nature of the Bible today...after it was handed to you by the Roman Catholic Church.
I might add that every individual who handed it to you adhered to this institution also.
CatholicConversion 2 years ago
If your "magisterium" let churches base their teachings on crap like the infancy Gospel of James for more than 3 centuries before the Roman emperor made them set the record straight, then your "infallible" church failed and can't be trusted. Glad we've established that. The Roman Catholic Church is a flop from its supposed beginning...as if we needed any more convincing.
xinosaj 2 years ago
What I often find interesting is that often people like Cyril are quoted as referencing scripture as in, sola scriptura is being utilized. But they forget he bases this preaching upon the Catholic Church's infallible authority.
Which is why he preaches mass as sacrifice, prugatory, expiatory prayers for the dead, sacraments, intercession of the saints, holy orders, communion, baptismal regeneration, ect.
Indeed, quite protestant.
CatholicConversion 2 years ago
You know, I haven't honestly read Cyril, but he's pretty far from Christ chronologically, and I also find that most of you guys seriously misquote your "fathers," so I'm not going to worry much about it.
It still does nothing to even address how you church failed so miserably by letting you all believe that Jesus had divine sister named Sophia and came to rescue our souls from cyclic reincarnation until the Roman emperor forced them to set us straight - and that's if what you say is true.
xinosaj 2 years ago
Wikipedia says that Cyril denied original sin, held that the resurrection wasn't corporeal, and that many of his writings plainly speak of the Eucharist as symbolic. Of course, you'll pick and choose the sentences you like and brand them "tradition," even as stark heresy is printed two sentences away - or even in the same sentence as the words you like!
xinosaj 2 years ago
Sorry, Cyril did not speak of the eucharist as symbolic, that is flatly incorrect. I will now move on to show how ridiculously incorrect you are regarding Irenaeus.
CatholicConversion 2 years ago
I am not attempting to offer proof of the Church, I am clearly only focusing on one aspect of sola scriptura which is simply that it has not basis in history.
I could provide literally pages and pages of evidence proclaiming peter's primacy, apostolic succession, teaching authority, evidence through Peter's actions, authority of the Popes ect through the historical Church.
But I am not doing that right now. I will now, after showing how fraudulent and contradictory you are move on.
CatholicConversion 2 years ago
No proof except for those who lived in the days of the apostles, learned directly from an apostle, his disciples, ect
Which is more likely? That they isntantly fell into sin or that you just might be incorrect? Which is more likely?
If the Catholic Church was so heretical then where is the documentation from those closest to the apostles exclaiming this?
There is none, because they believed just as I do today.
CatholicConversion 2 years ago
Those writings don't establish your doctrine. We don't even begin to get anything resembling the rudiments of Catholic doctrine until we get to Cyprian, and many of the letters attributed to him are believed to be medieval forgeries. Cyprian, Augustine, etc. are as far from Jesus as Barack Obama is from Queen Elizabeth...they are not "early Christians." You misquote and distort people like Irenaeus, Clement, and Ignatius cuz that's all you can do.
xinosaj 2 years ago
Your claim of Ireneaus "shooting down" tradition is patently false. He is merely claiming the tradition resides purely within the sphere of the Catholic Church he gave supreme authority over matters of faith and morals.
The sacred tradition was alive and well as of his writings, not to mention his learning under John of the Gospel and Polycarp!
What an absolutely fraudulent claim you have just made. Was he not aware of scared tradition at the time he wrote against heresies? He was.
CatholicConversion 2 years ago
I see that, having been beaten, you are now resorting to just posting lies in such volume that I can't adequately respond in 500-character-limit posts. What early Christian writings will you cite? Against Heresies, which shoots down Petrine Supremacy and oral tradition if you read it in its full context? The Didache, which teaches adult baptism? The Letter of Ignatius, which also rules out Petrine Supremacy if you read it in its full context? Tertulllian, who shoots down infant baptism?
xinosaj 2 years ago
No, you will cite bits and pieces of these writings that are taken out of context, all while leaning on much-later writings by highly-speculative and less-Biblical writers like Augustine (although even these writers made many statements that don't square with your dogma). And you will NEVER, EVER recite a single sentence of your "oral tradition" to prove that it exists! You'll simply try to bury me under your mis-quotes and hope I'll forget about it. Nope. PLEASE QUOTE YOUR ORAL TRADITION NOW!
xinosaj 2 years ago
"Today we have observed the Lord's Holy day, in which we have read your letter (Pope Soter). Whenever we do read it (in church), we shall be able to profit thereby, as also we do when we read the earlier letter written to us by Clement."-Dionysius
CatholicConversion 2 years ago
"Ignatious...to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father."-Ignatius
CatholicConversion 2 years ago
Even more damning is that Ireaneus is writing to the gnostics and informing them that the reason that they cannot make a claim such as oral tradition is that it is due to them not being able to trace their roots to the apostles.
Notice what is said, if a church cannot trace it's roots clearly back to an apostle it is invalid. Please tell me which protestant group, sect, or church can trace it's historical heritage to an apostle?
I would love to hear this or even a teaching traced back.
CatholicConversion 2 years ago
So you admit that Irenaeus was writing to gnostics and that his arguments fit into that context. Good. So much for using him as evidence for your "oral tradition." Also note that he only talks about oral traditions in the church to disprove that Gnostics trace back to the apostles - he begins by noting that it's futile to argue the Bible with them because they don't accept it. HE BELIEVED THE BIBLE WAS SUPREME. We can all trace ourselves to the apostles, don't even bother.
xinosaj 2 years ago
We can trace ourselves to the apostles in the substance of our teaching, of course, but we can even play your game. The Anglicans have "valid holy orders" in your view cuz they got it from the Polish National Catholics. The Methodists have it because they got it from the Mar Thomas Christians in India (and possibly from Greek Orth bishop Erasmus, too). These groups, in turn, bestowed recognition of the ordinations of virtually all Trinitarian Protestant groups. Even your pope cannot nullify
xinosaj 2 years ago
the validity of holy orders bestowed by any other bishop in a line of apostolic succession, however that bishop chooses to bestow it. (I'm arguing as if your "apostolic succession" ideas are true, which they aren't, cuz Clement and others simply spoke of "apostolic succession" as the apostles' teachings, not some magic mojo.) So virtually any pastor in a trinitarian church of any type has valid "apostolic succession," if you bother to untangle it. So much for that.
xinosaj 2 years ago
"This is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyreans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter."-Tertullian
Want to recant that succession comment?
CatholicConversion 2 years ago
Substance of your teaching? And how do you discern that? By your personal interpretation. Exactly.
The problem though is that every single early church father strictly adhered to the real presence of Christ in the eucharist and yet you deny it.
Once again we see that when it comes between those who learned from apostles, their disciples or lived in the early cultures, and church communities it ends up that amazingly you have a better understanding and superior grasp of christian truth.
CatholicConversion 2 years ago
The fact that you could even possibly read that excrutiatingly lucid and comprehensive statement and come away with a belief that Irenaeus preached sola scriptura tells me all that I must know about you.
It is literally impossible to come away with such a conclusion if staying with honesty. You are simply that, dishonest at best.
CatholicConversion 2 years ago
Yes, we read nothing of purgatory, infant baptism (which was directly taught to Polycarp from John of the Gospel), Peter's primacy, ect
Nothing of this right? I will save myself the time writing the voluminous quotations which absolutely contradict this spurious charge.
If you want, I will just to show how absolutely incorrect you are once again.
CatholicConversion 2 years ago
Heck, even Martin Luther, the first true protestant who of course began promulating several doctrines which were virtually unknown beyond heretical quarters extracted 4 books from the Old Testament such as James, Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation.
And just as today several protestant groups today extract even more than that. I recently read an add for a protestant Bible in which contains 49 books!
CatholicConversion 2 years ago
Sorry I meant of course, to write New Testament when referencing Martin Luther's heretical teachings and doctrines.
CatholicConversion 2 years ago
Just letting you know, my classes, along with jobs, and a crippled girlfriend cause me to probably not be able to go online more than a few minutes at a time for the next week.
In shortly after I will return.
CatholicConversion 2 years ago
Luther did no such thing. That "epistle of straw" comment was just an assessment of the doctrinal weight of these books compared to Paul's letters and the gospels. Your apologists are liars who just make stuff up, cuz that's the only strategy you have - lies. Your dogma is so absurd that you must vow to not think for yourself in order to believe it - that's the core of your religion, blind submission to sexually abnormal men in robes.
xinosaj 2 years ago
I have Luther's German translation on my iPhone, and it has all those books in it - it even includes your "deutero-canonical' books, too, simply grouped together with a comment that notes the widely-accepted view of Jerome and Melito that these books were devotional but not doctrinal - a prevalent view until you tried to "improve" the OT and ended up with an OT different from your Orthodox kin, who tried their own "improvement." Different OTs from 2 "apostolic" churches - what a joke.
xinosaj 2 years ago
A prevalent view? That was the first Bible in which they were removed! Another thing, what exactly did those christians utilize before the printing press came into existence for the sole purpose of printing a Catholic Bible?
I mean, after all, if christians adhered to the Bible alone, and yet there were only handwritten, very expensive Bibles, what did they utilize?
CatholicConversion 2 years ago
When you come back from nursing your girlfriend, I'm going to categorize you with Mormons and demand that you defend the Book of Mormon. Makes perfect sense - you both have priesthoods, hierarchies, infallible presidents, and mysterious sacraments, as well as additional revelation beyond the Bible, although at least the Mormons can prove theirs exists by quoting it! So...why do authoritarian, hierarchical religions add to the Bible? Why do you contradict the Bible's teachings and morals?
xinosaj 2 years ago
Strangely, all of you authoritarian priest-religions attack the Bible's teachings on sexuality and marriage. You Catholics debase marriage by making Mary "ever-virgin" when the Bible says the exact opposite, while your Mormon kin debase it by encouraging polygamy. In both religions, you reduce your women to servile breeders who put their bodies and health at risk to fill the world with more fascist priest-followers. You are both theocrats who despise democracy and freedom.
xinosaj 2 years ago
Question, do you support "abortion rights"?
CatholicConversion 2 years ago
Not to mention the eucharist in which every single early father absolutely adhered to and yet people such as yourself place (if I am correct) assert that of course, they are all incorrect and yet you hold the true teaching.
The real presence is at the core of early christianity and yet it is denied. It is amazing.
CatholicConversion 2 years ago
Another point of fact, if you claim sola scriptura was the normative manner of discerning truth on matters of faith and morals a historical example must be provided.
It absolutely must be provided for if it is not provided and only clear examples of such a principle being rejected is available what does that state regarding the faith of some of the greatest christians in it's history?
A historical example, beyond heretics must be provided.
CatholicConversion 2 years ago
No, CatholicConversion, I do not need to do anything. There are, in fact, nice and juicy quotes from Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Jerusalem, and even from Iranaues and Augustine that all establish scripture as the rule and poo-poo "tradition." But you're just trying to evade the real issue - you do not have a preserved, defined "oral tradition" that you can cite, quote, and demonstrate. You have no preserved words from Jesus or the apostles. Without that, all you have is the Bible.
xinosaj 2 years ago
"succession of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us...anounced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of it's superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition."-Irenaeus
CatholicConversion 2 years ago
That is an out-of-conte