Magazine Article:
WHY THE BEREANS REJECTED SOLA SCRIPTURA
By STEVE RAY
source link

A prominent organization out of Oregon, with Dave Hunt at the helm, publishes a monthly newsletter entitled The Berean Call. The title is taken from Acts 17, where Paul refers to the Bereans in Asia Minor as "noble-minded," and Hunt chose the title to promote his belief in sola scriptura.

Sola scriptura, or the "Bible only," is a Protestant doctrine invented in the fifteenth century. It declares the Bible is the sole source of revelation and the only and final judge in all matters of the Christian faith. Martin Luther developed it as a reaction to the historic teachings of the Catholic Church and of the Fathers of the first centuries. Luther rejected the authority of the Church and the apostolic tradition and so was left with sola scriptura—the Bible alone.

In reality, though, Hunt has turned the episode in Berea on its head, since the noble-minded Bereans actually condemn his sola scriptura position. This Bereans passage has been commandeered by Fundamentalists for too long, and it is time Catholics reclaim it. Many have been troubled by this text, and many explanations from a Catholic perspective have been mediocre at best. Not only can the text be explained easily by Catholics, but it is actually a strong argument against sola scriptura and a convincing defense of the teaching of the Catholic Church.

We are told that the Bereans were more noble-minded (open-minded, better disposed, fair)—but more noble-minded than whom? The Thessalonians! It is convenient for Fundamentalists to pull this passage out of context and force it to stand alone. That way their case seems convincing, but the context tells the real story. Before we look at the Bereans, let’s take a look at those they are compared to, the Thessalonians. What did the Thessalonians do that made them less noble-minded?

We find out in Acts 17:1–9: "Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. And Paul went in, as was his custom, and for three weeks he argued with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead, and saying, ‘This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ.’ And some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a great many of the devout Greeks and not a few of the leading women. But the Jews were jealous, and, taking some wicked fellows of the rabble, they gathered a crowd, set the city in an uproar, and attacked the house of Jason, seeking to bring them out to the people. And when they could not find them, they dragged Jason and some of the brethren before the city authorities, crying, ‘These men who have turned the world upside down have come here also, and Jason has received them, and they are all acting against the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, Jesus.’ And the people and the city authorities were disturbed when they heard this. And when they had taken security from Jason and the rest, they let them go."

The Thessalonians rejected Paul and his message, and, after denouncing him, they became jealous that others believed. They treated Paul with contempt and violence, throwing him ignominiously out of town. Why? "For three weeks he [Paul] reasoned with them from the Scriptures" in the synagogue, as was his custom. They did not revile Paul the first week or the second; rather, they listened and discussed. But ultimately they rejected what he had to say. They compared Paul’s message to the Old Testament and decided that Paul was wrong. We must remember that many were proclaiming a wide variety of new teachings, all supposedly based on the Scriptures and revelations from God. Heresies, cults, and sects were as numerous in the Roman Empire as they are today. The Jews in Thessalonica had a right to be skeptical.

Now let’s look at Luke’s comment about the noble-minded Bereans: "The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived they went into the Jewish synagogue. Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so. Many of them therefore believed, with not a few Greek women of high standing as well as men" (Acts 17:10–12).

When Protestants use this passage as a proof text for the doctrine of sola scriptura, they should realize that those in question were not Christians; they were Hellenistic Jews. There was no doctrine of sola scriptura within Jewish communities, but the Scriptures were held as sacred. Although the Jews are frequently referred to as "the people of the book," in reality they had a strong oral tradition that accompanied their Scriptures, along with an authoritative teaching authority, as represented by the "seat of Moses" in the synagogues (Matt. 23:2). The Jews had no reason to accept Paul’s teaching as "divinely inspired," since they had just met him. When new teachings sprang up that claimed to be a development of Judaism, the rabbis researched to see if they could be verified from the Torah.

If one of the two groups could be tagged as believers in sola scriptura, who would it be, the Thessalonians or the Bereans? The Thessalonians, obviously. They, like the Bereans, examined the Scriptures with Paul in the synagogue, yet they rejected his teaching. They rejected the new teaching, deciding after three weeks of deliberation that Paul’s word contradicted the Torah. Their decision was not completely unjustified from their scriptural perspective. How could the Messiah of God be cursed by hanging on a tree like a common criminal, publicly displayed as one who bore the judgment of God? What kind of king and Messiah would that be? This seemed irreconcilable to them (see Simon J. Kistemaker, Acts [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1990], 614).

When some of the Greeks and prominent citizens did accept Jesus as Messiah, the Jews became jealous—and rightfully so, from their perspective, since the new believers separated themselves from the synagogue and began meeting elsewhere, at Jason’s house. The Jews naturally considered themselves the authoritative interpreters of the Torah. Who were the Gentiles to interpret Scripture and decide important theological issues or accept additional revelation? They were the "dogs," not the chosen custodians of the oracles of God (see William Barclay, The Acts of the Apostles [Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Westminster Press, 1976], 128).

We can see, then, that if anyone could be classified as adherents to sola scriptura it was the Thessalonian Jews. They reasoned from the Scriptures alone and concluded that Paul’s new teaching was "unbiblical."

The Bereans, on the other hand, were not adherents of sola scriptura, for they were willing to accept Paul’s new oral teaching as the word of God (as Paul claimed his oral teaching was; see 1 Thess. 2:13). The Bereans, before accepting the oral word of God from Paul, a tradition as even Paul himself refers to it (see 2 Thess. 2:15), examined the Scriptures to see if these things were so. They were noble-minded precisely because they "received the word with all eagerness." Were the Bereans commended primarily for searching the Scriptures? No. Their open-minded willingness to listen was the primary reason they are referred to as noble-minded—not that they searched the Scriptures. A perusal of grammars and commentaries makes it clear that they were "noble-minded" not for studying Scripture, but for treating Paul more civilly than did the Thessalonians—with an open mind and generous courtesy (see I. Howard Marshall, "The Acts of the Apostles" in the Tyndale New Testament Commentaries [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1981], 5:280).

continuing.....

The Bereans searched the Torah no less than the Thessalonians, yet they were eager to accept words of God from the mouth of Paul, in addition to what they already held to be Scripture, that is, the Law and the Prophets. Even if one claims that Paul preached the gospel and not a "tradition," it is clear that the Bereans were accepting new revelation that was not contained in their Scriptures. These Berean Jews accepted oral teaching, the tradition of the apostles, as equal to Scripture, in addition to, and as an "extension" of, the Torah. This is further illustrated by the Christian community’s reception of Paul’s epistles as divinely inspired Scripture (see 2 Peter 3:16; here Peter seems to acknowledges Paul’s writings as equal to the "other Scriptures," which can be presumed to refer to the Old Testament).

From the perspective of anti-Catholics, the Thessalonians would have been more noble-minded, for they loyally stuck to their canon of Scripture alone and rejected any additional binding authority (spoken or written) from the mouth of an apostle. In fact, at the Council of Jamnia, around A.D. 90, the Jews determined that anything written after Ezra was not infallible Scripture; they specifically mentioned the Gospels of Christ in order to reject them.

Why did the Bereans search the Scriptures? Because they were the sole source of revelation and authority? No, but to see if Paul was in line with what they already knew—to confirm additional revelation. They would not submit blindly to his apostolic teaching and oral tradition, but, once they accepted the credibility of Paul’s teaching as the oral word of God, they put it on a par with Scripture and recognized its binding authority. After that, like the converts who believed in Thessalonica, they espoused apostolic Tradition and the Old Testament equally as God’s word (see 2 Thess. 2:15, 3:16). Therefore they accepted apostolic authority, which means that the determinations of Peter in the first Church council, reported in Acts 15, would have been binding on these new Gentile converts.

By contrast, the Jews of Thessalonica would have condemned Peter’s biblical exegesis at the Council of Jerusalem. They would have scoffed at the Church’s having authority over them—the Torah was all they needed. Those who held to sola scriptura rejected Paul because he claimed to be the voice of "additional revelation."

Luke makes it plain that those who were willing to accept apostolic Tradition as binding were more noble-minded. The Bereans passage, therefore, is hardly a proof text for those who espouse sola scriptura. This text proves too much for Fundamentalists. Anti-Catholics love to associate themselves with the Bereans, but the example of the Bereans actually condemns their exegesis. Luke’s praise of the Bereans cannot be applied to Fundamentalist Protestants, who resemble rather the Thessalonians, who held to sola scriptura and rejected the oral word of God contained in Tradition and in the teaching authority of the Church.

To be consistent with his novel theology of sola scriptura, Dave Hunt ought to rename his monthly newsletter. Let me suggest a new title: The Thessalonian Call.

If you rely solely on the bible as your source for understanding God, are you not saved?

When Catholics go to mass, do they bring a pile of books with them because they are Holy references required to understanding God? Or do you just bring the Bible?

When studying and understanding God, what book do you go to most often?

If you rely solely on the bible as your source for understanding God, are you not saved?

When Catholics go to mass, do they bring a pile of books with them because they are Holy references required to understanding God? Or do you just bring the Bible?

When studying and understanding God, what book do you go to most often?

I have been to lots of catholic masses and have never seen this mythical "pile of books" being used or referenced. in fact at every catholic mass i have ever attended there are several readings directly from the bible, and a discussion of biblical texts.

Can anyone else see what onel is trying to pull off here? When someone posts something against his church, he :bawl: but he'll go and post things that go against God (our beliefs) and think he's really something.

I really don't care what anyone posts here. It's a public forum and we had better be ready for anything that appears here. I just see it as a minor attempt at trying to get back at us. What do you think?

Btw; "The Bible alone" is NOT a 15th century doctrine :duh: Get better sources or you'll look foolish.....again.

Can anyone else see what onel is trying to pull off here? When someone posts something against his church, he :bawl: but he'll go and post things that go against God (our beliefs) and think he's really something.

I really don't care what anyone posts here. It's a public forum and we had better be ready for anything that appears here. I just see it as a minor attempt at trying to get back at us. What do you think?

Btw; "The Bible alone" is NOT a 15th century doctrine :duh: Get better sources or you'll look foolish.....again.

Boohoo, onel is picking on me. You truly need to put your big boy panties on. We have for years put up with your posts and anti-Catholic rhetoric. You and SM are realizing your tactics (not so much your message) have landed you on an island and now you have the audacity to call for backup. And by the way, that post had nothing against God as was evident by your complete lack of rebuttal.

Wirelessly posted

Can anyone else see what onel is trying to pull off here? When someone posts something against his church, he :bawl: but he'll go and post things that go against God (our beliefs) and think he's really something.

I really don't care what anyone posts here. It's a public forum and we had better be ready for anything that appears here. I just see it as a minor attempt at trying to get back at us. What do you think?

Btw; "The Bible alone" is NOT a 15th century doctrine :duh: Get better sources or you'll look foolish.....again.

Haha, onel is turning the tables on you and SM :killingme

What is good for the goose is good for the catholic haters :yay:

Can anyone else see what onel is trying to pull off here? When someone posts something against his church, he :bawl: but he'll go and post things that go against God (our beliefs) and think he's really something.

I really don't care what anyone posts here. It's a public forum and we had better be ready for anything that appears here. I just see it as a minor attempt at trying to get back at us. What do you think?

Btw; "The Bible alone" is NOT a 15th century doctrine :duh: Get better sources or you'll look foolish.....again.

With all due respect IT, I don’t see things exactly the way you do. I refuse to take the leap of making up my own mind about someone’s salvation because they happen to have certain practices, or believe there could be other sources from God other than the bible. I would bet there are things you believe that I could argue the biblical accuracy of it. There are certainly a lot of practices by the Catholic Church that bother me. There are practices by the charismatic churches that bother me. I have a problem with ALL organized religions/denominations. I have been told so many things, that if I don’t believe them or disavow them, I’m going straight to hell. I’ve seen Christians that are heavy drinkers, smokers, some that spews 4-letter words quite often, some that feel it’s okay to partake in nudism, some that believe it’s okay to go to strip clubs, speeders, bird flippers, child abusers… the list goes on. Not one of them would I ever judge as being saved or not saved.

What books you decide to use as your source, as long as it doesn’t blaspheme the Holy Spirit, is not, in my opinion, much of a factor. I would contend to say for most Christians, there wasn’t a book (not even the Bible) that opened them up to God and resulted in their salvation. Life experiences and interaction with other people usually produce this result.

Here’s a question: Can you still be a Christian and have never read the bible… ever?

To me, that’s like asking “Can you really be a musician and never read music?

If you rely solely on the bible as your source for understanding God, are you not saved?

Maybe, maybe not. :shrug:

When Catholics go to mass, do they bring a pile of books with them because they are Holy references required to understanding God? Or do you just bring the Bible?

Scripture as well as oral preaching is incorporated in the Mass. There's no need for anything but an open, loving heart.

When studying and understanding God, what book do you go to most often?

The Bible of course, then the Church Fathers and other theological treatises. Catholics are not adverse to scripture, Psy. It is an integral part of the deposit of faith. We just don't happen to believe it's the only deposit of faith.

Btw; "The Bible alone" is NOT a 15th century doctrine :duh: Get better sources or you'll look foolish.....again.

Well it sure as heck can't be found in the Bible or Church Fathers.

Personally, I find Sola Scriptura absurd. Not only were the books of the bible decided by men (!) but rather men in a Church council (!). The entire premise of Sola Scriptura falls apart right there, not to mention it's not even found in scripture itself (I'd laugh my butt off over that irony if you didn't take it so seriously). In addition, in it's essence it is anarchy. I'll point out again that even Reformed Protestant denominations do not agree with each other even on essentials. If there were agreement on the essentials (as some here like to claim), and essentials are all that matters (again as some like to claim), then there would be no various Protestant denominations now would there? Sola Scripture is a fallacy that has created anarchy within the Body of Christ (some of you bible-only types would call that demonic).

Btw, I'm going to skip where you equated God with your personal faith because I have no words for that but...WOW! :shocked:

Maybe, maybe not. :shrug:.

Not much on specifics here. :lol:


Scripture as well as oral preaching is incorporated in the Mass. There's no need for anything but an open, loving heart.



The Bible of course, then the Church Fathers and other theological treatises. Catholics are not adverse to scripture, Psy. It is an integral part of the deposit of faith. We just don't happen to believe it's the only deposit of faith.

So, Sola Scriptura............ right?

Not much on specifics here. :lol:




So, Sola Scriptura............ right?

Sorry, that was the honest answer. You know I can't state who and who will not be saved.

No, Sola Scriptura means scripture alone. The Holy Spirit works in countless ways and is not limited to a book. God's so-called "hands" can't be tied. I think you would agree.

Edit: I'm seeing a link, and I don't like it. I don't want links popping up over everything we post unless deliberately. Vrai or David, can you fix that?

Sorry, that was the honest answer. You know I can't state who and who will not be saved.

No, Sola Scriptura means scripture alone. The Holy Spirit works in countless ways and is not limited to a book. God's so-called "hands" can't be tied. I think you would agree.

I know it was honest. And I agree with you. :yay:

But, Sola Scriptura, to me, means that with all ‘sources’ they completely depend on the bible for their validity; that no other source out there precedes or overrides the bible. The bible is the sole authority for God’s Word and none other can or will differ from what the bible states. If there is something that is being used as a source for God’s Word other than the bible and it differs from the bible it cannot be considered valid. But this doesn’t mean other sources can’t be considered as valid sources of God’s truth. It does not mean that the only thing we should be extracting knowledge from is the bible. But, with everything we read in regards to God’s Word must be bumped up against the bible for validity.

I know it was honest. And I agree with you. :yay:

But, Sola Scriptura, to me, means that with all ‘sources’ they completely depend on the bible for their validity; that no other source out there precedes or overrides the bible. The bible is the sole authority for God’s Word and none other can or will differ from what the bible states. If there is something that is being used as a source for God’s Word other than the bible and it differs from the bible it cannot be considered valid. But this doesn’t mean other sources can’t be considered as valid sources of God’s truth. It does not mean that the only thing we should be extracting knowledge from is the bible. But, with everything we read in regards to God’s Word must be bumped up against the bible for validity.

There was a time when there was no bible. The Church Fathers had no bible to rely on, Psy, but rather Tradition. With the exception of later-comers who hold to Sola Scriptura, that hasn't changed. For Catholics today, scripture and Tradition go hand-in-hand. It's a both/and scenario, not an either/or. Therefore, the bible although extraordinarily important and sacred is not the sole source of the deposit of faith.

The Holy Spirit can work through you. You are not a book.

Magazine Article:
WHY THE BEREANS REJECTED SOLA SCRIPTURA
By STEVE RAY
source link...

Gee Onel, let's consider some things here:

First: "Sola Scriptura" (as we define it) was not even compiled as a BIBLE yet during the times of the Bereans! You are aware of that aren't you?

Second: How could they reject the compilation of The Holy Bible (Sola Scriptura) before it was even put into print?

Third: The Bereans were doing a "Fact Check" on everything that Paul was preaching to them about and they were searching their own Jewish scriptures in order to find out if what Paul was preaching was in line with what their scriptures prophesied about the Jewish Messiah. They were, and they accepted Paul as a genuine proclaimer of God's Truth, not a false teacher.

Fourth: Sola Scriptura (The Bible compilation) consists of the collection of writings of the Old Testament Prophets, as well as accounts of Jesus birth, life, ministry, miracles, sayings, Crucifixion, and Resurrection, as well as the writings of the first-century Apostles. (Compiled well after the Berean era). Now, are you inferring that you need other teachings apart from those who had first-hand experiences to know the truth?

Fifth: Wherever extra-Biblical teachings have been introduced the rise for establishing another gospel and another Jesus has always been the result. Thus, the "Jesus" of the RCC, the "Jesus" of the Mormons, the "Jesus" of the Jehovah's Witnesses, the "Jesus" of the Sun Myung Moon cult, the "Jesus" of the Seventh-Day Adventists, the "Jesus" (Isa) of the Muslims, etc.

The Messiah that Paul spoke about matched up with the prophesied Messiah of the Jewish Tanakh (Bible) and the Bereans accepted his account as being True about the fulfillment of The Suffering Servant.

Now, care to try another angle of attack on Sola Scriptura?


And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.

These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.

(Acts 17:10-12)

We are to be like the Bereans and compare what you are being told to what the Holy Bible states about God, Christ, Salvation, etc. That's when you will tell if the preacher is in line with what the Word of God proclaims or if they are preaching another gospel and another Jesus/Messiah.

Wirelessly posted

Magazine Article:
WHY THE BEREANS REJECTED SOLA SCRIPTURA
By STEVE RAY
source link...

Gee Onel, let's consider some things here:

First: "Sola Scriptura" (as we define it) was not even compiled as a BIBLE yet during the times of the Bereans! You are aware of that aren't you?

Second: How could they reject the compilation of The Holy Bible (Sola Scriptura) before it was even put into print?

Third: The Bereans were doing a "Fact Check" on everything that Paul was preaching to them about and they were searching their own Jewish scriptures in order to find out if what Paul was preaching was in line with what their scriptures prophesied about the Jewish Messiah. They were, and they accepted Paul as a genuine proclaimer of God's Truth, not a false teacher.

Fourth: Sola Scriptura (The Bible compilation) consists of the collection of writings of the Old Testament Prophets, as well as accounts of Jesus birth, life, ministry, miracles, sayings, Crucifixion, and Resurrection, as well as the writings of the first-century Apostles. (Compiled well after the Berean era). Now, are you inferring that you need other teachings apart from those who had first-hand experiences to know the truth?

Fifth: Wherever extra-Biblical teachings have been introduced the rise for establishing another gospel and another Jesus has always been the result. Thus, the "Jesus" of the RCC, the "Jesus" of the Mormons, the "Jesus" of the Jehovah's Witnesses, the "Jesus" of the Sun Myung Moon cult, the "Jesus" of the Seventh-Day Adventists, the "Jesus" (Isa) of the Muslims, etc.

The Messiah that Paul spoke about matched up with the prophesied Messiah of the Jewish Tanakh (Bible) and the Bereans accepted his account as being True about the fulfillment of The Suffering Servant.

Now, care to try another angle of attack on Sola Scriptura?


And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.

These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.

(Acts 17:10-12)

We are to be like the Bereans and compare what you are being told to what the Holy Bible states about God, Christ, Salvation, etc. That's when you will tell if the preacher is in line with what the Word of God proclaims or if they are preaching another gospel and another Jesus/Messiah.

You need to learn to read and not jus reject. The article made a clear argument as to why the bereans would reject sola scripture, and it focused on the story. If the Jews had a strong oral tradition that went along with their scriptures and they used those to judge Pauls story, it only follows that they would expect oral traditions to be carried forward and used to help understand future scriptures.

Besides, as you pointed out, the bible hadn't been compiled yet, so you can't make the argument that the bereans would have agreed with the stories it contains. Even the story of the bereans only says they believed Pauls story, not that they believed all of the stories of the NT.

Wirelessly posted



You need to learn to read and not jus reject. The article made a clear argument as to why the bereans would reject sola scripture, and it focused on the story. If the Jews had a strong oral tradition that went along with their scriptures and they used those to judge Pauls story, it only follows that they would expect oral traditions to be carried forward and used to help understand future scriptures.

Besides, as you pointed out, the bible hadn't been compiled yet, so you can't make the argument that the bereans would have agreed with the stories it contains. Even the story of the bereans only says they believed Pauls story, not that they believed all of the stories of the NT.

The Bereans did a fact-check by referencing Scripture, did they not? The pivotal point was about Jesus being the Jewish Messiah. The Bereans concluded that Paul's message about the risen Lord and Saviour were true and accepted Jesus as being their prophesied Messiah! That's what we are to be doing; referencing the Scriptures in order to see if what we are being told is so. Agreed, Jewish Oral Tradition complemented and did not contradict the Jewish writings about God and the Jewish Messiah at all. RCC traditions and theology, like Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc., are in conflict with both the Old and the New Testament teachings.

Boohoo, onel is picking on me. You truly need to put your big boy panties on. We have for years put up with your posts and anti-Catholic rhetoric. You and SM are realizing your tactics (not so much your message) have landed you on an island and now you have the audacity to call for backup. And by the way, that post had nothing against God as was evident by your complete lack of rebuttal.
This coming from the RR stalker? And "nothing against God"? Yeah; ok. Keep thinking that...

Haha, onel is turning the tables on you and SM :killingme
What is good for the goose is good for the catholic haters :yay:
:duh:

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted



You need to learn to read and not jus reject. The article made a clear argument as to why the bereans would reject sola scripture, and it focused on the story. If the Jews had a strong oral tradition that went along with their scriptures and they used those to judge Pauls story, it only follows that they would expect oral traditions to be carried forward and used to help understand future scriptures.

Besides, as you pointed out, the bible hadn't been compiled yet, so you can't make the argument that the bereans would have agreed with the stories it contains. Even the story of the bereans only says they believed Pauls story, not that they believed all of the stories of the NT.

The Bereans did a fact-check by referencing Scripture, did they not? The pivotal point was about Jesus being the Jewish Messiah. The Bereans concluded that Paul's message about the risen Lord and Saviour were true and accepted Jesus as being their prophesied Messiah! That's what we are to be doing; referencing the Scriptures in order to see if what we are being told is so. Agreed, Jewish Oral Tradition complemented and did not contradict the Jewish writings about God and the Jewish Messiah at all. RCC traditions and theology, like Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc., are in conflict with both the Old and the New Testament teachings.

You have no idea what the jewish oral traditions were at the time of the bereans, nor do you know if the NT accurately reflects the story that Paul told the bereans. Besides, they referenced the OT scriptures, so taking a berean view you wouldnt need or want the NT.

On top of that, the bereans used oral tradition to understand the meaning of their scriptures. That would indicate that they would support the use of additional teaching not found in the bible.

With all due respect IT, I don’t see things exactly the way you do. I refuse to take the leap of making up my own mind about someone’s salvation because they happen to have certain practices, or believe there could be other sources from God other than the bible. I would bet there are things you believe that I could argue the biblical accuracy of it. There are certainly a lot of practices by the Catholic Church that bother me. There are practices by the charismatic churches that bother me. I have a problem with ALL organized religions/denominations. I have been told so many things, that if I don’t believe them or disavow them, I’m going straight to hell. I’ve seen Christians that are heavy drinkers, smokers, some that spews 4-letter words quite often, some that feel it’s okay to partake in nudism, some that believe it’s okay to go to strip clubs, speeders, bird flippers, child abusers… the list goes on. Not one of them would I ever judge as being saved or not saved.

What books you decide to use as your source, as long as it doesn’t blaspheme the Holy Spirit, is not, in my opinion, much of a factor. I would contend to say for most Christians, there wasn’t a book (not even the Bible) that opened them up to God and resulted in their salvation. Life experiences and interaction with other people usually produce this result.

Here’s a question: Can you still be a Christian and have never read the bible… ever?

To me, that’s like asking “Can you really be a musician and never read music?
You're implying that I've said something about whether onel is saved or not? I never did, so why would you say that? I'm addressing his speaking out against the Bible. There is only one source for absolute truth. There are other sources for truth but none of them are "absolute" as the Bible is and that's the point I'm making to him.

Sure, you can be a Christian and never have read the Bible BUT the issue is that we have the Bible and, when someone says something that is contradicted in it, why wouldn't a Christian speak up? That's why I said he's speaking against God...

Well it sure as heck can't be found in the Bible or Church Fathers.
Personally, I find Sola Scriptura absurd. Not only were the books of the bible decided by men (!) but rather men in a Church council (!). The entire premise of Sola Scriptura falls apart right there, not to mention it's not even found in scripture itself (I'd laugh my butt off over that irony if you didn't take it so seriously). In addition, in it's essence it is anarchy. I'll point out again that even Reformed Protestant denominations do not agree with each other even on essentials. If there were agreement on the essentials (as some here like to claim), and essentials are all that matters (again as some like to claim), then there would be no various Protestant denominations now would there? Sola Scripture is a fallacy that has created anarchy within the Body of Christ (some of you bible-only types would call that demonic).
Btw, I'm going to skip where you equated God with your personal faith because I have no words for that but...WOW! :shocked:
Maybe you've missed those verses about the inerrancy of Scripture? I posted them before...

Wirelessly posted



You have no idea what the jewish oral traditions were at the time of the bereans, nor do you know if the NT accurately reflects the story that Paul told the bereans. Besides, they referenced the OT scriptures, so taking a berean view you wouldnt need or want the NT.

The New Testament is the unfolding prophecy of the Old Testament teachings and expectations in that a New Covenant was established between God and mankind through Jesus, the Jewish Messiah.

The Bereans definitely would have wanted (as they accepted) being able to partake of the New Covenant through faith in Christ.


On top of that, the bereans used oral tradition to understand the meaning of their scriptures. That would indicate that they would support the use of additional teaching not found in the bible.

Sure, as long as it did not conflict with nor contradict their own written instructions and accounts about God, Messiah, this life and the world to come. :whistle:

But, Sola Scriptura, to me, means that with all ‘sources’ they completely depend on the bible for their validity; that no other source out there precedes or overrides the bible. The bible is the sole authority for God’s Word and none other can or will differ from what the bible states. If there is something that is being used as a source for God’s Word other than the bible and it differs from the bible it cannot be considered valid. But this doesn’t mean other sources can’t be considered as valid sources of God’s truth. It does not mean that the only thing we should be extracting knowledge from is the bible. But, with everything we read in regards to God’s Word must be bumped up against the bible for validity.
This is exactly what I've said, so why are you fussing with me? Don't I convey this clearly enough here? Those other sources must be judged against the Bible. If they're not, it causes people to have wrong interpretations of Christian doctrines.

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted



You have no idea what the jewish oral traditions were at the time of the bereans, nor do you know if the NT accurately reflects the story that Paul told the bereans. Besides, they referenced the OT scriptures, so taking a berean view you wouldnt need or want the NT.

The New Testament is the unfolding prophecy of the Old Testament teachings and expectations in that a New Covenant was established between God and mankind through Jesus, the Jewish Messiah.

The Bereans definitely would have wanted (as they accepted) being able to partake of the New Covenant through faith in Christ.


On top of that, the bereans used oral tradition to understand the meaning of their scriptures. That would indicate that they would support the use of additional teaching not found in the bible.

Sure, as long as it did not conflict with nor contradict their own written instructions and accounts about God, Messiah, this life and the world to come. :whistle:

Well then you obviously would agree that they wouldnt have been sola scripture. Just like the author of the article indicated.

Wirelessly posted



Well then you obviously would agree that they wouldnt have been sola scripture. Just like the author of the article indicated.

Sola Scriptura was/is the foundation of Truth. Whatever is being preached verbally or in writing apart from The Holy Bible still needs to be compared to Bible Scriptures (as the Bereans did) so, the fact remains that sticking with Sola Scriptura is the Standard of God's Truth. Anything else will only affirm what is already established in Sola Scriptura or it will contradict it. That's the reason why it is important to make the comparisons - to see if what is being said is in alignment with the Holy Bible acounts. Put things to the test by referencing them and seeing if they are in agreement with The Holy Bible (Sola Scriptura) Old & New Testament.

It still turns out that the Bereans definitely needed to see if what Paul was saying was in agreement with their SCRIPTURES and that's why they searched the scriptures daily!

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted



Well then you obviously would agree that they wouldnt have been sola scripture. Just like the author of the article indicated.

Sola Scriptura was/is the foundation of Truth. Whatever is being preached verbally or in writing apart from The Holy Bible still needs to be compared to Bible Scriptures (as the Bereans did) so, the fact remains that sticking with Sola Scriptura is the Standard of God's Truth. Anything else will only affirm what is already established in Sola Scriptura or it will contradict it. That's the reason why it is important to make the comparisons - to see if what is being said is in alignment with the Holy Bible acounts. Put things to the test by referencing them and seeing if they are in agreement with The Holy Bible (Sola Scriptura) Old & New Testament.

It still turns out that the Bereans definitely needed to see if what Paul was saying was in agreement with their SCRIPTURES and that's why they searched the scriptures daily!

You are doing an awful lot of tap dancing. Now it seems that extrabiblical teachings are just fine as long as SM agrees with them. That is a big old load of BS. Since the Catholics have the most complete collection of documents from the earliest days of cbristianty and they were essentially reaponsilbe for compiling the bible as we know it, it only follows that they would know if their teachings coincide with the bible.

You are using an incomplete edited, translated, edited, translated, and edited version of the bible while they actually have the most original texts.

One thing is for certain, the author of this article makes a great point, the bereans would have rejected your sola scripture stance because they used extrabiblical teachings themselves.

Maybe you've missed those verses about the inerrancy of Scripture? I posted them before...

Inerrancy of scripture isn't the problem. Stating that the bible is the only inerrant source of Christian truth is.

Wirelessly posted



You are doing an awful lot of tap dancing. Now it seems that extrabiblical teachings are just fine as long as SM agrees with them. That is a big old load of BS. Since the Catholics have the most complete collection of documents from the earliest days of cbristianty and they were essentially reaponsilbe for compiling the bible as we know it, it only follows that they would know if their teachings coincide with the bible.

Complete collection???? There is neither Jewish Oral Tradition nor writings in the Torah and complete Tanakh (nor even in the Talmud) that claim the Jewish Messiah would be accompanied in Heaven by His mother as "Queen of Heaven"... - that's just for starters!


You are using an incomplete edited, translated, edited, translated, and edited version of the bible while they actually have the most original texts.

One thing is for certain, the author of this article makes a great point, the bereans would have rejected your sola scripture stance because they used extrabiblical teachings themselves.

:doh:

As mentioned, the Bereans still ended up doing a Fact-Check by referring to their own Scriptures in order to see if what Paul was telling them was true. They just didn't take his word for it and still referred to what had been written about the prophesied Jewish Messiah. That is how they concluded that Jesus was the One (the Jewsih Messiah) as testified by Paul's oratory. IOW: The Bereans compared what they heard to what had been written in their Scriptures.


Something to consider:

Jews await two Messiahs: Moshiach ben Yosef and Moshiach ben David.

This reflects the two divisions today as there were at the time of Paul's message about Jesus. The two divisions are Orthodox Jews and Messianic Jews.

1: Orthodox Jews don't believe Jesus was/is the Messiah because He did not vanquish the Jewish enemies in military battle nor did He bring "peace" at that time whereby the Kingdom of God would be established in Jerusalem and the swords turned into plowshares - as mentioned in their scriptures. This is the group that killed the Prophets sent by God who preached against the heresies of Jewish traditions and doctrines thus causing the falling away of the Jewish people.

2: The Jews who accepted Jesus (Yeshua HaMashiach) understood that the prophesied New Covenant for mankind was fulfilled in the birth, life, ministry and resurrection of Jesus, the one who was crucified by Rome at the behest of the Orthodox Jews. Even then, it was the Holy Spirit of God that opened their understanding to the Truth of Scripture being fulfilled by Jesus for the establishment of the prophesied New Covenant between God and mankind.

Sure, there were oral teachings of the Messiah but even then the "Sola Scriptura" at the time of the Bereans would have been the Tanakh which gave the indicators of how to recognize the Jewish Messiah. The oral teachings would not have conflicted with what had been written.

The traditions and teachings of the RCC conflict with both Biblical Old and New Testament teachings, just as the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Muslims, and all other cults conflict with the Holy Bible.

Complete collection???? There is neither Jewish Oral Tradition nor writings in the Torah and complete Tanakh (nor even in the Talmud) that claim the Jewish Messiah would be accompanied in Heaven by His mother as "Queen of Heaven"... - that's just for starters!



:doh:

As mentioned, the Bereans still ended up doing a Fact-Check by referring to their own Scriptures in order to see if what Paul was telling them was true. They just didn't take his word for it and still referred to what had been written about the prophesied Jewish Messiah. That is how they concluded that Jesus was the One (the Jewsih Messiah) as testified by Paul's oratory. IOW: The Bereans compared what they heard to what had been written in their Scriptures.


Something to consider:

Jews await two Messiahs: Moshiach ben Yosef and Moshiach ben David.

This reflects the two divisions today as there were at the time of Paul's message about Jesus. The two divisions are Orthodox Jews and Messianic Jews.

1: Orthodox Jews don't believe Jesus was/is the Messiah because He did not vanquish the Jewish enemies in military battle nor did He bring "peace" at that time whereby the Kingdom of God would be established in Jerusalem and the swords turned into plowshares - as mentioned in their scriptures. This is the group that killed the Prophets sent by God who preached against the heresies of Jewish traditions and doctrines thus causing the falling away of the Jewish people.

2: The Jews who accepted Jesus (Yeshua HaMashiach) understood that the prophesied New Covenant for mankind was fulfilled in the birth, life, ministry and resurrection of Jesus, the one who was crucified by Rome at the behest of the Orthodox Jews. Even then, it was the Holy Spirit of God that opened their understanding to the Truth of Scripture being fulfilled by Jesus for the establishment of the prophesied New Covenant between God and mankind.

Sure, there were oral teachings of the Messiah but even then the "Sola Scriptura" at the time of the Bereans would have been the Tanakh which gave the indicators of how to recognize the Jewish Messiah. The oral teachings would not have conflicted with what had been written.

The traditions and teachings of the RCC conflict with both Biblical Old and New Testament teachings, just as the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Muslims, and all other cults conflict with the Holy Bible.

again, you have NO IDEA what the oral teachings were at the time of the bereans. to pretend that you do is just plain stupid.

There was a time when there was no bible. The Church Fathers had no bible to rely on, Psy, but rather Tradition. With the exception of later-comers who hold to Sola Scriptura, that hasn't changed. For Catholics today, scripture and Tradition go hand-in-hand. It's a both/and scenario, not an either/or. Therefore, the bible although extraordinarily important and sacred is not the sole source of the deposit of faith.

The Holy Spirit can work through you. You are not a book.

The Sabbath is an interesting example of taking God’s Word and completely making it human rather than Godly. There was to be no work on the Sabbath. Not even the animals were to be put to work. It was a simple command: “no work”. Do all preparation the day before. The Hebrews came to realize it was impossible to do absolutely no work. What if a chair needed to be move to another part of the room? So they created little rules that would allow them to do some work but not to appear as work. It transpired into a book that is thicker than the Obamacare bill. If you needed to move a chair, (I’m paraphrasing out of memory) you have to have three men on each part of the chair to lift it and move it. There were hundreds of such rules.

Jesus was criticized for WORKING on the Sabbath by healing someone. What was Jesus’ response? “If one of you has a child or an ox that falls into a well on the Sabbath day, will you not immediately pull it out?” (Luke 14:6).

The point I’m trying to make is, if we’re going to rely on ‘tradition’, word of mouth, and people passing on things from one generation to the other for thousands of years, God’s Word will typically get distorted. The Hebrews took great steps in trying to figure out how to get around the rule of the Sabbath in order to justify work; only to find out from Jesus that there are exceptions to work.

That’s the purpose for having the WRITTEN word. It does not change. It becomes the standard because it does not change. Passing stories verbally from one generation to the next will result in those stories getting distorted and changed. Why do you think Jesus commanded John to write down everything he was shown resulting in the book of Revelation (1:19)? He knew relying on word-of-mouth would result in His story getting distorted over time.

Of course, just as we can question word-of-mouth as being fallible because humans are involved the written word can also be called into question. But the written word doesn’t change.

again, you have NO IDEA what the oral teachings were at the time of the bereans. to pretend that you do is just plain stupid.

Read for yourself about the oral teachings from a Jewish site.

The Oral Law (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/Oral_Law.html)


Oral teachings are verbal commentaries that expound upon, clarify, and complement written Scriptures; they in no way contradict written text that is attributed to being The Words of God.

Comparing oral teachings to written Scripture is what confirms if someone is speaking the truth or not. Thus, the Bereans searched the Scriptures to see if the things Paul was saying were in fact true about the appearance of Jesus being the Jewish Messiah.

Psy, maybe this link will help you understand Tradition better. It's more than mere story telling. Catholic Tradition (http://www.beginningcatholic.com/catholic-tradition.html)

The written word is open to interpretation and therefore it's already distorted. It changed with Martin Luther 1500 years after Christ. We see interpretation havoc here every day on this forum don't we? Therefore, scripture is only infallible with an infallible interpreter. Scripture AND Tradition; both/and, not either/or.

If you reject one (Tradition), you have to logically reject the other(Scripture). And hey, if you want to do that fine, but don't try to tell me scripture alone is all that is necessary for revealed Truth. It's not and it's glaringly obvious. What amazes me is that Tradition is taught in scripture, but yet people such as yourself reject it while remaing staunchly scripture only. No offense, but what a stupid and ridiculous condundrum for you to find yourself in.

I suspect the thing that's gumming you up is if you admit that Tradition is necessary then the logic will flow that Tradition can only reside in the Catholic Church founded by Christ Himself and you just can't bring yourself to do that yet. It's ok, I was there at one point too until I could no longer in good conscience deny the truth.

Psy, maybe this link will help you understand Tradition better. It's more than mere story telling. Catholic Tradition (http://www.beginningcatholic.com/catholic-tradition.html)

The written word is open to interpretation and therefore it's already distorted. It changed with Martin Luther 1500 years after Christ. We see interpretation havoc here every day on this forum don't we? Therefore, scripture is only infallible with an infallible interpreter. Scripture AND Tradition; both/and, not either/or.

If you reject one (Tradition), you have to logically reject the other(Scripture). And hey, if you want to do that fine, but don't try to tell me scripture alone is all that is necessary for revealed Truth. It's not and it's glaringly obvious. What amazes me is that Tradition is taught in scripture, but yet people such as yourself reject it while remaing staunchly scripture only. No offense, but what a stupid and ridiculous condundrum for you to find yourself in.

I suspect the thing that's gumming you up is if you admit that Tradition is necessary then the logic will flow that Tradition can only reside in the Catholic Church founded by Christ Himself and you just can't bring yourself to do that yet. It's ok, I was there at one point too until I could no longer in good conscience deny the truth.

Thanks for the education on tradition :ohwell:

So, let me get this straight… something that is written is open to interpretation therefore flawed, but something that is passed on – by word of mouth – over thousands of years is considered infallible? Do you even realize what you’re saying? You do realize that when someone tells 5 people something 5 people will understand it differently. Then each person will pass that on to 5 people each which will have even more differing understanding of it. By the time thousands of years pass that original story will likely be so distorted from the original message that it isn’t even remotely the same. However, if something is written, that never changes. You can always go back to it and it will not change. The written word is NOT what is ‘distorted’. It is our interpretation of it that is distorted; but no matter how many generations go by that written word remains the same and you can always go back and verify it. You can't verify something that was said 2000 years ago passed on verbally.

But your assertion that if I reject Catholicism (one tradition) I am rejecting scripture is patently false. You’re assertion is that if I don’t accept Catholicism I don’t accept the gospel, therefore am not saved. I am NOT saying scripture alone is all that is necessary. We need each other. We need analysis of scripture. We need stories that tell us peoples’ testimony. But, with everything you read, hear, and see you should bump it up against the bible. If it doesn’t jive with the bible it should be considered FALSE.

It’s just like our constitution and law. No law should be passed that doesn’t pass the sniff test with the constitution. It is our central authority. The bible is the Christian faith’s central document.

And please let me set you straight… I am not ‘gummed up’. I believe organized religion is gummed up. Today they don’t serve to spread the gospel. They serve to make money and control lives. Jesus spoke out against such things. Jesus railed the leaders of the temple for how they practiced their ‘traditions’. Jesus warned us not to follow PEOPLE. He warned us of false prophets and being led astray by people preaching false doctrine. There was a reason the gospels were WRITTEN. There was a reason they went through such dire efforts to keep those documents protected. There is a reason you call it the HOLY BIBLE. There’s a reason Jesus warned not to call any person HOLY or FATHER or GOOD (Mark 10:18, Matthew 23:8-10). Yet, we humans violate God’s warnings and WORD over and over. Our world or organized religion, for this reason, is what’s ‘gummed up’.

Thanks for the education on tradition :ohwell:

So, let me get this straight… something that is written is open to interpretation therefore flawed, but something that is passed on – by word of mouth – over thousands of years is considered infallible? Do you even realize what you’re saying? You do realize that when someone tells 5 people something 5 people will understand it differently. Then each person will pass that on to 5 people each which will have even more differing understanding of it. By the time thousands of years pass that original story will likely be so distorted from the original message that it isn’t even remotely the same. However, if something is written, that never changes. You can always go back to it and it will not change. The written word is NOT what is ‘distorted’. It is our interpretation of it that is distorted; but no matter how many generations go by that written word remains the same and you can always go back and verify it. You can't verify something that was said 2000 years ago passed on verbally.

But your assertion that if I reject Catholicism (one tradition) I am rejecting scripture is patently false. You’re assertion is that if I don’t accept Catholicism I don’t accept the gospel, therefore am not saved. I am NOT saying scripture alone is all that is necessary. We need each other. We need analysis of scripture. We need stories that tell us peoples’ testimony. But, with everything you read, hear, and see you should bump it up against the bible. If it doesn’t jive with the bible it should be considered FALSE.

It’s just like our constitution and law. No law should be passed that doesn’t pass the sniff test with the constitution. It is our central authority. The bible is the Christian faith’s central document.

And please let me set you straight… I am not ‘gummed up’. I believe organized religion is gummed up. Today they don’t serve to spread the gospel. They serve to make money and control lives. Jesus spoke out against such things. Jesus railed the leaders of the temple for how they practiced their ‘traditions’. Jesus warned us not to follow PEOPLE. He warned us of false prophets and being led astray by people preaching false doctrine. There was a reason the gospels were WRITTEN. There was a reason they went through such dire efforts to keep those documents protected. There is a reason you call it the HOLY BIBLE. There’s a reason Jesus warned not to call any person HOLY or FATHER or GOOD (Mark 10:18, Matthew 23:8-10). Yet, we humans violate God’s warnings and WORD over and over. Our world or organized religion, for this reason, is what’s ‘gummed up’.

just one comment on the scripture vs oral traditions; the NT is widely beleived to have been written years if not decades after the fact. So in essence the scriptures are based on oral traditions that were eventually written down.

i will agree that written stories tend to change less, but even then, the bible was rewritten/translated numerous times.

Thanks for the education on tradition :ohwell:

So, let me get this straight… something that is written is open to interpretation therefore flawed, but something that is passed on – by word of mouth – over thousands of years is considered infallible?

They go together. You can't have one without the other. TOGETHER they are infallible. Stop thinking in terms of either/or and think instead of both/and. I didn't even read the rest of your post because until you can grasp that simple concept this conversation is fruitless.

"Therefore brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle."

Some dude named Paul.

just one comment on the scripture vs oral traditions; the NT is widely beleived to have been written years if not decades after the fact. So in essence the scriptures are based on oral traditions that were eventually written down.

i will agree that written stories tend to change less, but even then, the bible was rewritten/translated numerous times.

The source of the gospels are not settled; so assuming they are based in ‘tradition’ is your opinion. Even though historians don’t completely agree any of the gospels were written by any of the disciples, they mostly agree the gospels were written prior to 70AD. Why is this important? The Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed in 70AD. There is no mention in any of the gospels of this, nor is there any mention of it in Acts. This would also imply Acts was written prior to 70AD. Why is this important? Having the time period still within the life-span of many of the disciples can substantiate their authorship or at least their involvement in verifying the information. Either way, whoever wrote them were likely eyewitness of the life of Christ since all 4 Gospels are so close in timeline and facts.

It’s widely believed that Matthew was written by the apostle Matthew. The original manuscript was written in Aramaic (not Greek) and Matthew was Aramaic.

Mark was not an apostle, but he was a disciple of Peter. So he had a direct account of an eyewitness. There were not several generations that passed before this Gospel was written. First generation information is perfectly legitimate, especially when it is penned directly from the mouth of an eyewitness.

Luke is the only one that could be called into question since he was not an apostle, but was a disciple of Paul. Luke life was still during the time the original apostles were alive and likely had direct contact with them. Given the accuracy between his writings and the other Gospels, it’s fair to say he had direct contact with eyewitnesses.

John was likely the apostle John and he claims within his gospel to be an eyewitness to the events of Jesus. You either believe the writing or you don’t.

In any event, the believed timeframe of the writing of the Gospels falls within the period where eyewitnesses influenced the writings. Again, you either believe that or you don’t. This is far removed from the belief that the gospels are a result of tradition. Eyewitness accounts are not based in tradition; they are based in FACT.

They go together. You can't have one without the other. TOGETHER they are infallible. Stop thinking in terms of either/or and think instead of both/and. I didn't even read the rest of your post because until you can grasp that simple concept this conversation is fruitless.

When tradition runs contrary to the written Word, they do not go hand-in-hand.

You need to stop thinking you’re educating me on something as if you have some deeper knowledge of these things than everyone else. You accuse me of not grasping certain concept while you also refuse to accept certain premises.

Christian traditions are flawed when they rely on humans to use their own ideals to perpetuate them rather than falling back on a standard that defines those traditions. Using the Catholic Church as an example (not picking on them, just an example)… What sort of tradition goes back to the days of Christ and the first so-called 'Pope' Peter that has today’s pope adorned in dramatic attire with a massive crown on his head and an expensive ring that people are supposed to kiss? This is not Peter at all. Jesus and his disciples led very humble, poor lives. They did not adorn themselves in such a way. I view this tradition as having nothing to do with the Christian faith at all. I would argue the same about some of our massive churches that have been built. They serve more to bring attention on them and rake in massive amounts of cash rather than reflect who our savior is. Jesus had no Church building. He primarily preached in fields and in nature, rather than in buildings. Because of the sins of the Sanhedrin he predicted the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem. The building had no meaning anymore.

So traditions, when they skew from the bible are nothing more than traditions and have no meaning in context of who Jesus was and what he wants for us.

When tradition runs contrary to the written Word, they do not go hand-in-hand.


Catholic Tradition doesn't run contrary. That's your own construct and perhaps that is due to your scriptural interpretations that have no infallible authority (get a clue here).

Apparently you do need an education on what Tradition (big T not little t) is, if you are trying to make comparisons with what the Pope wears.

Re-read and try to grasp the concept. Really Psy, I'm not trying to put you down, but you're coming across as either daft or deliberately obtuse.

Inerrancy of scripture isn't the problem. Stating that the bible is the only inerrant source of Christian truth is.
What other source(s) are "infallible"?

You are doing an awful lot of tap dancing. Since the Catholics have the most complete collection of documents from the earliest days of cbristianty and they were essentially reaponsilbe for compiling the bible as we know it, it only follows that they would know if their teachings coincide with the bible. You are using an incomplete edited, translated, edited, translated, and edited version of the bible while they actually have the most original texts.
A person's inability to understand spiritual things doesn't make the spiritual things wrong. When the Bible books were compiled, God controlled the thoughts & actions of those men. It had nothing to do with whether their teachings coincided with the writings.

Your desire to not believe that God CAN keep his Word intact, causes you to say incorrect things like: "edited, translated, incomplete..." You should marvel at the fact that the writings were kept intact (by God) throughout those thousands of years. Read up on the Dead Sea scrolls and you'll find out how accurate those Scriptures really are.

The written word is open to interpretation and therefore it's already distorted. It changed with Martin Luther 1500 years after Christ. We see interpretation havoc here every day on this forum don't we? Therefore, scripture is only infallible with an infallible interpreter...
You couldn't be more wrong about this.

If you reject one (Tradition), you have to logically reject the other(Scripture). And hey, if you want to do that fine, but don't try to tell me scripture alone is all that is necessary for revealed Truth. It's not and it's glaringly obvious. What amazes me is that Tradition is taught in scripture, but yet people such as yourself reject it while remaing staunchly scripture only. No offense, but what a stupid and ridiculous condundrum for you to find yourself in.
A lot of tradition was spoken against by Jesus in Matthew 15. As long as the Word of God doesn't contradict a tradition, it's ok. The Jews were living an "anything goes" life and it got Jesus highly upset.

I suspect the thing that's gumming you up is if you admit that Tradition is necessary then the logic will flow that Tradition can only reside in the Catholic Church founded by Christ Himself and you just can't bring yourself to do that yet. It's ok, I was there at one point too until I could no longer in good conscience deny the truth.
I'd say you've "denied the truth"...
"Therefore brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle."
Some dude named Paul.
So you think that Paul means ALL & ANY tradition they've learned is ok? If not, which ones were ok?

Wirelessly posted

just one comment on the scripture vs oral traditions; the NT is widely beleived to have been written years if not decades after the fact. So in essence the scriptures are based on oral traditions that were eventually written down.

i will agree that written stories tend to change less, but even then, the bible was rewritten/translated numerous times.

The source of the gospels are not settled; so assuming they are based in ‘tradition' is your opinion. Even though historians don't completely agree any of the gospels were written by any of the disciples, they mostly agree the gospels were written prior to 70AD. Why is this important? The Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed in 70AD. There is no mention in any of the gospels of this, nor is there any mention of it in Acts. This would also imply Acts was written prior to 70AD. Why is this important? Having the time period still within the life-span of many of the disciples can substantiate their authorship or at least their involvement in verifying the information. Either way, whoever wrote them were likely eyewitness of the life of Christ since all 4 Gospels are so close in timeline and facts.

It's widely believed that Matthew was written by the apostle Matthew. The original manuscript was written in Aramaic (not Greek) and Matthew was Aramaic.

Mark was not an apostle, but he was a disciple of Peter. So he had a direct account of an eyewitness. There were not several generations that passed before this Gospel was written. First generation information is perfectly legitimate, especially when it is penned directly from the mouth of an eyewitness.

Luke is the only one that could be called into question since he was not an apostle, but was a disciple of Paul. Luke life was still during the time the original apostles were alive and likely had direct contact with them. Given the accuracy between his writings and the other Gospels, it's fair to say he had direct contact with eyewitnesses.

John was likely the apostle John and he claims within his gospel to be an eyewitness to the events of Jesus. You either believe the writing or you don't.

In any event, the believed timeframe of the writing of the Gospels falls within the period where eyewitnesses influenced the writings. Again, you either believe that or you don't. This is far removed from the belief that the gospels are a result of tradition. Eyewitness accounts are not based in tradition; they are based in FACT.

First you say that the authorship is debatable, then you go into a description of who wrote the texts and when. Ill throw the "that's your opinion" back at you.
And if the authorship is unknown then obviously the time of the writing is unknown. As for the stories agreeing, it is widely believed that one of the gospels was written first and the others were based off of it. Well that and the fact that the stories that were included were chosen because they supported the objectives of the early church. So yeah, it's my opinion that the written books were based on oral traditions. But there is nothing to really dispute that opinion other than other opinions :shrug:

Catholic Tradition doesn't run contrary. That's your own construct and perhaps that is due to your scriptural interpretations that have no infallible authority (get a clue here).

Apparently you do need an education on what Tradition (big T not little t) is, if you are trying to make comparisons with what the Pope wears.

Re-read and try to grasp the concept. Really Psy, I'm not trying to put you down, but you're coming across as either daft or deliberately obtuse.

The Pope and what he wears was only an example. Kissing the feet of statues, calling your priests Father, and the Pope holy, when Jesus forbid such things; just a couple more examples. Your rituals of chanting and echoing, standing, sitting, kneeling continuously through mass. Where did Jesus or Peter have their congregations doing that? The smoke, candles, confessions to your priest, kneeling to the Pope. Jesus told us to confess our sins to God. What sort of tradition are you following here derived from the original practices of Jesus and Peter?

What’s daft or obtuse about asking these very valid questions? If you want to call me stupid for questioning your practices, that’s fine. I’ve been around long enough to know exactly what I’ve seen, what I’ve learned and how they pair up with my view of Jesus’ ORIGINAL intent for us. And what I see in virtually all of our churches today do not fit that mold. My view is, Jesus is extremely disappointed with our churches.

Wirelessly posted



First you say that the authorship is debatable, then you go into a description of who wrote the texts and when. Ill throw the "that's your opinion" back at you.
And if the authorship is unknown then obviously the time of the writing is unknown. As for the stories agreeing, it is widely believed that one of the gospels was written first and the others were based off of it. Well that and the fact that the stories that were included were chosen because they supported the objectives of the early church. So yeah, it's my opinion that the written books were based on oral traditions. But there is nothing to really dispute that opinion other than other opinions :shrug:

You obviously don’t understand the term ‘debatable’. It means that enough time has passed, and enough evidence lost to make it a valid debate to have a different opinion than someone else. It doesn’t mean I doubt it.

It is my opinion along with countless others. Haven’t you figured out yet… the bible is something you BELIEVE. Because the writings can’t be proven with indisputable proof doesn’t mean it isn’t so. If you chose not to believe the writings of the Gospels are from first-hand accounts, that’s your choice. I’m not trying to prove to you otherwise. I’m giving you information as I know it and believe it. You can either take it or leave it. But what I’ve given you is, in many historians’ opinions true.

Here is a fact… the Gospels exist. Someone wrote them. They are all very close in accounts. They are central to the faith of Christianity. If you are a Christian, you believe the Gospels are the Word of God. It’s just that simple. There’s not much purpose in me trying to prove to someone with so much doubt about the historical accuracy of them. As with most things in this forum, it’s your purpose in life to cast doubt on anything someone posts. I got that a long time ago. I don’t begrudge you for it. It actually makes things interesting.

:buddies:

"Therefore brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle."

Some dude named Paul.

Yes, as long as those traditions have remained consistent with the teachings of Christ.

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted



First you say that the authorship is debatable, then you go into a description of who wrote the texts and when. Ill throw the "that's your opinion" back at you.
And if the authorship is unknown then obviously the time of the writing is unknown. As for the stories agreeing, it is widely believed that one of the gospels was written first and the others were based off of it. Well that and the fact that the stories that were included were chosen because they supported the objectives of the early church. So yeah, it's my opinion that the written books were based on oral traditions. But there is nothing to really dispute that opinion other than other opinions :shrug:

You obviously don’t understand the term ‘debatable’. It means that enough time has passed, and enough evidence lost to make it a valid debate to have a different opinion than someone else. It doesn’t mean I doubt it.

It is my opinion along with countless others. Haven’t you figured out yet… the bible is something you BELIEVE. Because the writings can’t be proven with indisputable proof doesn’t mean it isn’t so. If you chose not to believe the writings of the Gospels are from first-hand accounts, that’s your choice. I’m not trying to prove to you otherwise. I’m giving you information as I know it and believe it. You can either take it or leave it. But what I’ve given you is, in many historians’ opinions true.

Here is a fact… the Gospels exist. Someone wrote them. They are all very close in accounts. They are central to the faith of Christianity. If you are a Christian, you believe the Gospels are the Word of God. It’s just that simple. There’s not much purpose in me trying to prove to someone with so much doubt about the historical accuracy of them. As with most things in this forum, it’s your purpose in life to cast doubt on anything someone posts. I got that a long time ago. I don’t begrudge you for it. It actually makes things interesting.

:buddies:

I understand the term debatable. Just like yours, there are many that share the opinion I have posted. Many many believers have the opinion I have expressed here. That doesnt make them any less believers. And what I have given you, is also the opinion of many historians.
It's pretty straight forward, the actual facts about who wrote the gospels and when are lost to time. Therefore the opinion that some or all of them were oral traditions committed to paper long after jesus and the apostles were gone is just as valid as the alternative.

Magazine Article:
WHY THE BEREANS REJECTED SOLA SCRIPTURA
By STEVE RAY
source link
Did you get this from the Steve Ray/Bavarian loves Fundies thread where I replied?

Here's James White's rebuttal back from 1999.

http://vintage.aomin.org/This Bereans passage.html

Wirelessly posted

A person's inability to understand spiritual things doesn't make the spiritual things wrong. When the Bible books were compiled, God controlled the thoughts & actions of those men. It had nothing to do with whether their teachings coincided with the writings.

Your desire to not believe that God CAN keep his Word intact, causes you to say incorrect things like: "edited, translated, incomplete..." You should marvel at the fact that the writings were kept intact (by God) throughout those thousands of years. Read up on the Dead Sea scrolls and you'll find out how accurate those Scriptures really are.
the bible is incomplete with respect to the written scriptures at the time the bible was compiled. There were numerous gospels that were not included.
The bible was edited numerous times
The bible was translated numerous times.
Pretending those statements are not true is just ridiculous.
If as you claim god was controlling those people when they compiled, edited and translated the bible at various times over millennia, what makes you think he isn't doing the same thing with respect to the catholic leadership?
Considering the extensive disagreements over interpretations even in the sola scripture sects, why hasnt god kept his word intact in that respect?
And which version of the bible is the sola scripture version?

the bible is incomplete with respect to the written scriptures at the time the bible was compiled. There were numerous gospels that were not included.
The bible was edited numerous times
The bible was translated numerous times...
So how long have you been a Bible scholar?
Who said there are other gospels that should have been included? The Bible is totally complete with it's 66 books. None of those other gospels were considered "inspired" by God so they weren't included.

The actual Bible was never "edited". The 1611 KJV Bible was edited many times along with these "bibles": Book of Mormon, New World translation, Amplified Bible, Scofield study Bible, Dakes Bible, Rheims Douay, just to name a few.

Yes, the Bible was translated numerous times, into numerous languages and into numerous versions. Some of them are not truly accurate (by the hand of the devil) but those that are accurate, God allows us to know. Using the wrong Bible is one of the many reasons why some people are led into false beliefs.

If as you claim god was controlling those people when they compiled, edited and translated the bible at various times over millennia, what makes you think he isn't doing the same thing with respect to the catholic leadership?
Considering the extensive disagreements over interpretations even in the sola scripture sects, why hasnt god kept his word intact in that respect?
And which version of the bible is the sola scripture version?
I see no use in going in circles with you after this. I know you've read my posts in other threads.

The RCC was started by Constantine in the 4th century and was based on some Christian & some pagan beliefs. IF he was listening to God, that wouldn't have happened. It's not that God's Word isn't intact, it's that people misunderstand what's written in it. They listen to (and believe) bad teachers, they DON'T listen to God trying to teach them, they read it wrong, or they take it out of it's intended context. That's NOT God's fault.

I personally like the New International Version (NIV) but there are a few other good translations. Not that many though so it's buyer beware. If a particular Bible has more than 66 books, it should be avoided.

The Pope and what he wears was only an example. Kissing the feet of statues, calling your priests Father, and the Pope holy, when Jesus forbid such things; just a couple more examples. Your rituals of chanting and echoing, standing, sitting, kneeling continuously through mass. Where did Jesus or Peter have their congregations doing that? The smoke, candles, confessions to your priest, kneeling to the Pope. Jesus told us to confess our sins to God. What sort of tradition are you following here derived from the original practices of Jesus and Peter?

What’s daft or obtuse about asking these very valid questions? If you want to call me stupid for questioning your practices, that’s fine. I’ve been around long enough to know exactly what I’ve seen, what I’ve learned and how they pair up with my view of Jesus’ ORIGINAL intent for us. And what I see in virtually all of our churches today do not fit that mold. My view is, Jesus is extremely disappointed with our churches.

And here again you're proving you're not catching on. Big T, not little t. Yes, you need an education in what is meant by Tradition because we will just talk past each other if we aren't using the same definition. It gets slightly involved so I will try to post a new thread time willing.

What other source(s) are "infallible"?

Bishops in union with the Holy See in ecumenical councils, and the pope himself.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Infallibility (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm)

You couldn't be more wrong about this.

On the contrary, I'm spot on. It's a matter of simple observation.

A lot of tradition was spoken against by Jesus in Matthew 15. As long as the Word of God doesn't contradict a tradition, it's ok. The Jews were living an "anything goes" life and it got Jesus highly upset.

Sure, but that has no bearing on what I was speaking of. I see Psy isn't the only one who needs an education in Tradition.

I'd say you've "denied the truth"...

Of course you would, but who cares what you say?

Wirelessly posted


the bible is incomplete with respect to the written scriptures at the time the bible was compiled. There were numerous gospels that were not included.
The bible was edited numerous times
The bible was translated numerous times...
So how long have you been a Bible scholar?
Who said there are other gospels that should have been included? The Bible is totally complete with it's 66 books. None of those other gospels were considered "inspired" by God so they weren't included.

The actual Bible was never "edited". The 1611 KJV Bible was edited many times along with these "bibles": Book of Mormon, New World translation, Amplified Bible, Scofield study Bible, Dakes Bible, Rheims Douay, just to name a few.

Yes, the Bible was translated numerous times, into numerous languages and into numerous versions. Some of them are not truly accurate (by the hand of the devil) but those that are accurate, God allows us to know. Using the wrong Bible is one of the many reasons why some people are led into false beliefs.

If as you claim god was controlling those people when they compiled, edited and translated the bible at various times over millennia, what makes you think he isn't doing the same thing with respect to the catholic leadership?
Considering the extensive disagreements over interpretations even in the sola scripture sects, why hasnt god kept his word intact in that respect?
And which version of the bible is the sola scripture version?
I see no use in going in circles with you after this. I know you've read my posts in other threads.

The RCC was started by Constantine in the 4th century and was based on some Christian & some pagan beliefs. IF he was listening to God, that wouldn't have happened. It's not that God's Word isn't intact, it's that people misunderstand what's written in it. They listen to (and believe) bad teachers, they DON'T listen to God trying to teach them, they read it wrong, or they take it out of it's intended context. That's NOT God's fault.

I personally like the New International Version (NIV) but there are a few other good translations. Not that many though so it's buyer beware. If a particular Bible has more than 66 books, it should be avoided.

I can tell you that I am just as much of a biblical scholar as Howard long :bigwhoop:

So back in the 4th century the council determined which books were inspired by god, and then the Protestants hundreds of years later decided to omit some of those books? How could the original council have been wrong if they were guided by god?

And now again in the sixties this guy Howard long starts a movement to Retranslate the bible and that group edits out several passages. Not just that, but they set up a system to routinely edit the bible, with the most recent version of the NIV coming out in 2011.

And there in lies the problem with sola scripture, it all depends on what the writes (translators and editors) believed and what their intention was at the time of their writing.

So how long have you been a Bible scholar? Who said there are other gospels that should have been included? The Bible is totally complete with it's 66 books. None of those other gospels were considered "inspired" by God so they weren't included.The actual Bible was never "edited". The 1611 KJV Bible was edited many times along with these "bibles": Book of Mormon, New World translation, Amplified Bible, Scofield study Bible, Dakes Bible, Rheims Douay, just to name a few.

Yes, the Bible was translated numerous times, into numerous languages and into numerous versions. Some of them are not truly accurate (by the hand of the devil) but those that are accurate, God allows us to know. Using the wrong Bible is one of the many reasons why some people are led into false beliefs.

I see no use in going in circles with you after this. I know you've read my posts in other threads.

The RCC was started by Constantine in the 4th century and was based on some Christian & some pagan beliefs. IF he was listening to God, that wouldn't have happened. It's not that God's Word isn't intact, it's that people misunderstand what's written in it. They listen to (and believe) bad teachers, they DON'T listen to God trying to teach them, they read it wrong, or they take it out of it's intended context. That's NOT God's fault.

I personally like the New International Version (NIV) but there are a few other good translations. Not that many though so it's buyer beware. If a particular Bible has more than 66 books, it should be avoided.

What does "how long" have to do with anything? I would argue Pope Benedict XVI has studied longer than you, but you would reject his "interpretations" out of hand, so in your world one thing has nothing to do with the other.
None of those other gospels were considered "inspired" by God so they weren't included.The actual Bible was never "edited". The 1611 KJV Bible was edited many times along with these "bibles": Book of Mormon, N
I find this particularly abusrd. So men "considered" and "included" what they determined were inspired by God. No, the Holy Spirit led, and men followed. Words mean things.
The actual Bible was never edited? What is the "actual" Bible? Where is it, who has it, etc.? The one you have in your hand has never been edited? Has it been translated? Are you a linguist, too? Have you gone to the Greek and Aramaic texts and gone word for word through it? Or are you trusting Simon and Schuster?
You're ridiculous.

Catholic Tradition doesn't run contrary. That's your own construct and perhaps that is due to your scriptural interpretations that have no infallible authority (get a clue here).

Apparently you do need an education on what Tradition (big T not little t) is, if you are trying to make comparisons with what the Pope wears.

Re-read and try to grasp the concept. Really Psy, I'm not trying to put you down, but you're coming across as either daft or deliberately obtuse.

Daft. I like that word.

The actual Bible was never "edited". The 1611 KJV Bible was edited many times along with these "bibles": Book of Mormon, New World translation, Amplified Bible, Scofield study Bible, Dakes Bible, Rheims Douay, just to name a few.

Yes, the Bible was translated numerous times, into numerous languages and into numerous versions. Some of them are not truly accurate (by the hand of the devil) but those that are accurate, God allows us to know. Using the wrong Bible is one of the many reasons why some people are led into false beliefs.

You make me giggle.


The RCC was started by Constantine in the 4th century and was based on some Christian & some pagan beliefs. IF he was listening to God, that wouldn't have happened. It's not that God's Word isn't intact, it's that people misunderstand what's written in it. They listen to (and believe) bad teachers, they DON'T listen to God trying to teach them, they read it wrong, or they take it out of it's intended context. That's NOT God's fault.

The Catholic Church was founded by Christ. We've been over this countless times, even with your required scriptural proof. :insert insult on your personhood here because at this point you are a deliberate deceiver:

Now having said that, taking what you wrote above, is it not obvious that a teaching authority guided by the Holy Spirit is necessary? Why, yes it is and God left us just that. You're right, it's not God's fault.

(I kind of love how you guys make my point for me.)

If a particular Bible has more than 66 books, it should be avoided.

If a bible only has 66 books, it is incomplete. Considering Jesus used the Septugaint and actually makes reference to books that the Protestant bible is missing tells us that perhaps you are right when you say that God's Word is not intact AND people misunderstand what is written. How ridiculous is it that a Protestant can cling to Sola Scriptura when they aren't even working with the full scriptures.

If a bible only has 66 books, it is incomplete. Considering Jesus used the Septugaint and actually makes reference to books that the Protestant bible is missing tells us that perhaps you are right when you say that God's Word is not intact AND people misunderstand what is written. How ridiculous is it that a Protestant can cling to Sola Scriptura when they aren't even working with the full scriptures.

This is something that should not be overlooked. I've posted this before as well. God forbid SS subscribers ever read Tobit where versuses like "I am Raphael, one of the seven holy angels who present the prayers of the saints and enter into the presence of the glory of the Holy One" would cause the sale of Kool Aid to sky rocket......

...Considering the extensive disagreements over interpretations even in the sola scripture sects, why hasnt god kept his word intact in that respect?...

Biblical Truths Are Verified By God's Holy Spirit:

The Gospel of God's Plan of Salvation is revealed to man by the Holy Spirit of God. This is the main difference between the True Word of God that is spiritual and the misguided religious ideologies that are misinterpreted by man's fallible teachings - especially through false prophets and false teachers that Jesus warned us about. i.e.
(Matthew 7:15) (Mark 12:38-39) (Luke 12:1) (Luke 20:46) (Colossians 2:8)

True Children of God are One in the Spirit of God:

For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. (1 Corinthians 12:13)

For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
(Ephesians 2:18)

There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; (Ephesians 4:4)

It is the Holy Spirit of God that reveals His Truth:

For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. (2 Peter 1:21)

But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. (John 14:26)

But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me.
(John 15:26)

Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.
(John 16:7)

But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. (1 John 2:27)


The Holy Spirit testifies to the Truth of who Jesus is:

But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
(John 15:26)

For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; (1 Timothy 2:5)

It is The Holy Spirit that empowers the Children of God:

And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness. And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all. (Acts 4:31-33)

And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;
(Ephesians 5:18)


This is our personal and spiritual relationship with the True God of Creation:

Indeed, the world is filled with many religious sects that spin off from major denominations, which spin off into cults which spin off into sub-cults and so on, and so on, and so on! All because of man's imperfect and human nature of trying to interpret God from many view points. However, here is the summation of all: There Is Only One Truth.

Mankind's own fallibility in trying to interpret who God is and how we are to personally relate with God is explained in the Holy Bible. However, most people try to use their own human intellect to understand God when the Bible states that God is a Spirit and he wants us to worship Him in Spirit and in Truth (John 4:24)

Again, mankind's human reasoning, no matter how theologically intellectual a preacher may be will be swayed to fall away into false assumptions which lead to false teachings. This has resulted in the formation of numerous religions in the world today and widespread confusion among millions as to which is the true religion. However, the Bible states that "...God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints." (1Corinthians 14:33)

Here are some points to consider regarding the need to seek and worship God on a personal and spiritual level which will lead the seeker to God's Truth:

Taught by God's Spirit; Not by man:

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. (Colossians 2:8)

But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. (John 14:26)

But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. (1 John 2:27)

1 Corinthians, Chapter 2, verses:

9: But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
10: But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11: For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12: Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13: Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14: But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Becoming Born Again through the Indwelling Holy Spirit of God

It is not a "religion" that brings truth; it is a spiritual relationship with the One True God that brings Truth. This is the "Born again" experience that Jesus spoke of: (John 3:1-36) and whereby He culminates all faith by His Words:

I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. (John 14:6)

There are many Biblical Truths that preachers do not go into detail about in order to deliberately avoid quoting verses that undermine the religious agenda of their specific denomination. In other cases, sermons only last so long because of time restrictions and the majority of those who attend church don't take the initiative to do some in-depth reading and studying of the Holy Bible on their own. For that reason, many believers do not fully grasp the authority that God has given us through our faith nor do they fully comprehend scriptural truths that can only be revealed through the Holy Spirit sent to us through our faith in Jesus:
Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. (John 16:7)

That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. (John 3:6-7)

One becomes a Child of God through being Born Again:

For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. (Romans 8:13-17)

Through being Born Again, One's Salvation is Sealed by the Holy Spirit of God:

Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.
(2 Corinthians 1:22)

In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, (Ephesians 1:13)

And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption. (Ephesians 4:30)


We need to give credit where credit is due.

The New Testament Scriptures are still attributed exclusively as being inspired writings of the 1st Century Jewish Apostles under the guidance of God's Holy Spirit. It is what Jesus told His Apostles would happen:

But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. (John 14:26)

The New Testament Scriptures are God's Words to mankind (not Rome's words) and there was nothing else that needed to be added from that point on. Therein, the Holy Bible contains all that is needed to know about Creation, mankind's broken relationship with God and how to be reconciled to receive Eternal Life through faith in the Atoning Blood of Jesus Christ.

God's Plan of Salvation is fulfilled and His Message to mankind is complete within the front and back covers of the Holy Bible.
__________________

And here again you're proving you're not catching on. Big T, not little t. Yes, you need an education in what is meant by Tradition because we will just talk past each other if we aren't using the same definition. It gets slightly involved so I will try to post a new thread time willing.

Since we're making ASSUMPTIONS about things... you need to learn the difference between 'catching on' and 'having a difference of opinion'. Because I don't accept your explanations doesn't mean I don't understand them.

Wirelessly posted



I understand the term debatable. Just like yours, there are many that share the opinion I have posted. Many many believers have the opinion I have expressed here. That doesnt make them any less believers. And what I have given you, is also the opinion of many historians.
It's pretty straight forward, the actual facts about who wrote the gospels and when are lost to time. Therefore the opinion that some or all of them were oral traditions committed to paper long after jesus and the apostles were gone is just as valid as the alternative.

Nope…. I’m right – You’re wrong :biggrin:

Biblical Truths Are Verified By God's Holy Spirit:

The Gospel of God's Plan of Salvation is revealed to man by the Holy Spirit of God. This is the main difference between the True Word of God that is spiritual and the misguided religious ideologies that are misinterpreted by man's fallible teachings - especially through false prophets and false teachers that Jesus warned us about. i.e.
(Matthew 7:15) (Mark 12:38-39) (Luke 12:1) (Luke 20:46) (Colossians 2:8)

True Children of God are One in the Spirit of God:

For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. (1 Corinthians 12:13)

For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
(Ephesians 2:18)

There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; (Ephesians 4:4)

It is the Holy Spirit of God that reveals His Truth:

For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. (2 Peter 1:21)

But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. (John 14:26)

But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me.
(John 15:26)

Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.
(John 16:7)

But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. (1 John 2:27)


The Holy Spirit testifies to the Truth of who Jesus is:

But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
(John 15:26)

For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; (1 Timothy 2:5)

It is The Holy Spirit that empowers the Children of God:

And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness. And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all. (Acts 4:31-33)

And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;
(Ephesians 5:18)


This is our personal and spiritual relationship with the True God of Creation:

Indeed, the world is filled with many religious sects that spin off from major denominations, which spin off into cults which spin off into sub-cults and so on, and so on, and so on! All because of man's imperfect and human nature of trying to interpret God from many view points. However, here is the summation of all: There Is Only One Truth.

Mankind's own fallibility in trying to interpret who God is and how we are to personally relate with God is explained in the Holy Bible. However, most people try to use their own human intellect to understand God when the Bible states that God is a Spirit and he wants us to worship Him in Spirit and in Truth (John 4:24)

Again, mankind's human reasoning, no matter how theologically intellectual a preacher may be will be swayed to fall away into false assumptions which lead to false teachings. This has resulted in the formation of numerous religions in the world today and widespread confusion among millions as to which is the true religion. However, the Bible states that "...God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints." (1Corinthians 14:33)

Here are some points to consider regarding the need to seek and worship God on a personal and spiritual level which will lead the seeker to God's Truth:

Taught by God's Spirit; Not by man:

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. (Colossians 2:8)

But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. (John 14:26)

But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. (1 John 2:27)

1 Corinthians, Chapter 2, verses:

9: But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
10: But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11: For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12: Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13: Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14: But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Becoming Born Again through the Indwelling Holy Spirit of God

It is not a "religion" that brings truth; it is a spiritual relationship with the One True God that brings Truth. This is the "Born again" experience that Jesus spoke of: (John 3:1-36) and whereby He culminates all faith by His Words:

I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. (John 14:6)

There are many Biblical Truths that preachers do not go into detail about in order to deliberately avoid quoting verses that undermine the religious agenda of their specific denomination. In other cases, sermons only last so long because of time restrictions and the majority of those who attend church don't take the initiative to do some in-depth reading and studying of the Holy Bible on their own. For that reason, many believers do not fully grasp the authority that God has given us through our faith nor do they fully comprehend scriptural truths that can only be revealed through the Holy Spirit sent to us through our faith in Jesus:
Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. (John 16:7)

That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. (John 3:6-7)

One becomes a Child of God through being Born Again:

For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. (Romans 8:13-17)

Through being Born Again, One's Salvation is Sealed by the Holy Spirit of God:

Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.
(2 Corinthians 1:22)

In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, (Ephesians 1:13)

And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption. (Ephesians 4:30)


We need to give credit where credit is due.

The New Testament Scriptures are still attributed exclusively as being inspired writings of the 1st Century Jewish Apostles under the guidance of God's Holy Spirit. It is what Jesus told His Apostles would happen:

But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. (John 14:26)

The New Testament Scriptures are God's Words to mankind (not Rome's words) and there was nothing else that needed to be added from that point on. Therein, the Holy Bible contains all that is needed to know about Creation, mankind's broken relationship with God and how to be reconciled to receive Eternal Life through faith in the Atoning Blood of Jesus Christ.

God's Plan of Salvation is fulfilled and His Message to mankind is complete within the front and back covers of the Holy Bible.
__________________

Copy and Paste

Since we're making ASSUMPTIONS about things... you need to learn the difference between 'catching on' and 'having a difference of opinion'. Because I don't accept your explanations doesn't mean I don't understand them.

I don't need to make assumptions. Your posts indicate the fact. :shrug:

Nope…. I’m right – You’re wrong :biggrin:

alright, that made me laugh, probably would have been ROFL if you had also called me an idiot :yay:

You make me giggle.



The Catholic Church was founded by Christ. We've been over this countless times, even with your required scriptural proof. :insert insult on your personhood here because at this point you are a deliberate deceiver:

Now having said that, taking what you wrote above, is it not obvious that a teaching authority guided by the Holy Spirit is necessary? Why, yes it is and God left us just that. You're right, it's not God's fault.

(I kind of love how you guys make my point for me.)

To be honest, I believe the Eastern Orthodox Church has a better claim. But that's just me, and I had trouble with their view on theosis.


If a bible only has 66 books, it is incomplete. Considering Jesus used the Septugaint and actually makes reference to books that the Protestant bible is missing tells us that perhaps you are right when you say that God's Word is not intact AND people misunderstand what is written. How ridiculous is it that a Protestant can cling to Sola Scriptura when they aren't even working with the full scriptures.
I'm not aware of Jesus quoting apocryphal writings in the gospels. Did I miss that?

I know Jude makes a reference to Moses that is probably based on an apocryphal writing.

Care to enlighten?

I'm not aware of Jesus quoting apocryphal writings in the gospels. Did I miss that?

I know Jude makes a reference to Moses that is probably based on an apocryphal writing.

Care to enlighten?

Matt. 6:19-20 - Jesus' statement about laying up for yourselves treasure in heaven follows Sirach 29:11 - lay up your treasure.

Matt.. 7:12 - Jesus' golden rule "do unto others" is the converse of Tobit 4:15 - what you hate, do not do to others.

Matt. 7:16,20 - Jesus' statement "you will know them by their fruits" follows Sirach 27:6 - the fruit discloses the cultivation.

Matt. 9:36 - the people were "like sheep without a shepherd" is same as Judith 11:19 - sheep without a shepherd.

Matt. 11:25 - Jesus' description "Lord of heaven and earth" is the same as Tobit 7:18 - Lord of heaven and earth.

Matt. 12:42 - Jesus refers to the wisdom of Solomon which was recorded and made part of the deuterocanonical books.

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus' reference to the "power of death" and "gates of Hades" references Wisdom 16:13.

Matt. 22:25; Mark 12:20; Luke 20:29 - Gospel writers refer to the canonicity of Tobit 3:8 and 7:11 regarding the seven brothers.

Matt. 24:15 - the "desolating sacrilege" Jesus refers to is also taken from 1 Macc. 1:54 and 2 Macc. 8:17.

Matt. 24:16 - let those "flee to the mountains" is taken from 1 Macc. 2:28.

Matt. 27:43 - if He is God's Son, let God deliver him from His adversaries follows Wisdom 2:18.

Mark 4:5,16-17 - Jesus' description of seeds falling on rocky ground and having no root follows Sirach 40:15.

Mark 9:48 - description of hell where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched references Judith 16:17.

Matt. 6:19-20 - Jesus' statement about laying up for yourselves treasure in heaven follows Sirach 29:11 - lay up your treasure.

Matt.. 7:12 - Jesus' golden rule "do unto others" is the converse of Tobit 4:15 - what you hate, do not do to others.

Matt. 7:16,20 - Jesus' statement "you will know them by their fruits" follows Sirach 27:6 - the fruit discloses the cultivation.

Matt. 9:36 - the people were "like sheep without a shepherd" is same as Judith 11:19 - sheep without a shepherd.

Matt. 11:25 - Jesus' description "Lord of heaven and earth" is the same as Tobit 7:18 - Lord of heaven and earth.

Matt. 12:42 - Jesus refers to the wisdom of Solomon which was recorded and made part of the deuterocanonical books.

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus' reference to the "power of death" and "gates of Hades" references Wisdom 16:13.

Matt. 22:25; Mark 12:20; Luke 20:29 - Gospel writers refer to the canonicity of Tobit 3:8 and 7:11 regarding the seven brothers.

Matt. 24:15 - the "desolating sacrilege" Jesus refers to is also taken from 1 Macc. 1:54 and 2 Macc. 8:17.

Matt. 24:16 - let those "flee to the mountains" is taken from 1 Macc. 2:28.

Matt. 27:43 - if He is God's Son, let God deliver him from His adversaries follows Wisdom 2:18.

Mark 4:5,16-17 - Jesus' description of seeds falling on rocky ground and having no root follows Sirach 40:15.

Mark 9:48 - description of hell where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched references Judith 16:17.This would be better presented if you actually quote the passages for comparison and the context was also considered.

For instance:
(I will use KJV for consistency)
Matt. 24:16
Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:

1 Macc. 2:28
So he and his sons fled into the mountains, and left all that ever they had in the city.

I sincerely hope that you can see the absolute absurdity of what you have proposed with this one. Are the rest this absurd too?

EDIT to add:

Matthew 9:36
King James Version (KJV)

36But when he saw the multitudes, he was moved with compassion on them, because they fainted, and were scattered abroad, as sheep having no shepherd.

Judith 11:19
And I will lead thee through the midst of Judea, until thou come before Jerusalem; and I will set thy throne in the midst thereof; and thou shalt drive them as sheep that have no shepherd, and a dog shall not so much as open his mouth at thee: for these things were told me according to my foreknowledge, and they were declared unto me, and I am sent to tell thee.

This one is not very good either.

More likely, Matthew, not Jesus, is quoting from Numbers, Kings, Chronicles, Ezekiel, or Zechariah.

This would be better presented if you actually quote the passages for comparison and the context was also considered.

For instance:
(I will use KJV for consistency)
Matt. 24:16
Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:

1 Macc. 2:28
So he and his sons fled into the mountains, and left all that ever they had in the city.

I sincerely hope that you can see the absolute absurdity of what you have proposed with this one. Are the rest this absurd too?

EDIT to add:

Matthew 9:36
King James Version (KJV)

36But when he saw the multitudes, he was moved with compassion on them, because they fainted, and were scattered abroad, as sheep having no shepherd.

Judith 11:19
And I will lead thee through the midst of Judea, until thou come before Jerusalem; and I will set thy throne in the midst thereof; and thou shalt drive them as sheep that have no shepherd, and a dog shall not so much as open his mouth at thee: for these things were told me according to my foreknowledge, and they were declared unto me, and I am sent to tell thee.

This one is not very good either.

More likely, Matthew, not Jesus, is quoting from Numbers, Kings, Chronicles, Ezekiel, or Zechariah.

i wouldn't call it absurdity. For the first one you quote I think you need to include a little more from both to understand.

Matt:
16Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:

17Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:

18Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.


thats eems to coincide with
1 Macc. 2:28
So he and his sons fled into the mountains, and left all that ever they had in the city.


maybe not your interpretation, but not exactly absurd that they are similar either......

To be honest, I believe the Eastern Orthodox Church has a better claim. But that's just me, and I had trouble with their view on theosis.

Remember, Catholic and Orthodox were one in the same until 1054AD. It's the primacy of Peter and his successors that give Catholicism a leg up from Orthodox. As for theosis, although the language and it's philosophical specific meaning can be disconcerting, it's not a problem if you understand it as the preternatural state of Adam and Eve. What is salvation if not to bring humanity back to where it once was before the fall?

I'm not aware of Jesus quoting apocryphal writings in the gospels. Did I miss that?

I know Jude makes a reference to Moses that is probably based on an apocryphal writing.

Care to enlighten?

I didn't say quote, I said make reference to (slight difference). There are OT books that both Catholics and Protestants agree on that are not quoted in the NT (Joshua, Judges, Ezekiel, Ezra and Chronicles), so lack of a direct quotation does not mean the book isn't inspired.

The list is too large for me to take the time to write them out side-by-side but here they are for your edification. It's pretty clear that Jesus and the Apostles used the Septugaint, so surely it's good enough for you and me. It would be ludicrous to be a Sola Scriptura adherent and not use the same [old testament] scriptures that Jesus Himself used but rather one that was set out by Jews (Jamnia) who also rejected the entire NT (!).

Matthew already set out by Onel

Mark 9:48 - Judith 16:17

Luke 1:42 - Judith 13:18
Luke 1:52 - Sirach 10:14
Luke 2:29 - Tobit 11:9
Luke 13:29 - Baruch 4:37
Luke 21:24 - Sirach 28:18
Luke 24:4 and Acts 1:10 - 2 Macc. 3:26

John 1:3 - Wisdom 9:1
John 3:13 - Baruch 3:29
John 4:48; Acts 5:12; 15:12; 2 Cor. 12:12 - Wisdom 8:8
John 5:18 - Wisdom 2:16
John 6:35-59 - Sirach 24:21
John 10:22 - 1 Macc. 4:59
John 10:36 – 1 Macc. 4:36
John 15:6 - Wis. 4:5

Acts 1:15 - 1 Macc. 3:55
Acts 10:34; Rom. 2:11; Gal. 2:6 - Sirach 35:12
Acts 17:29 - Wisdom 13:10

Rom 1:18-25 - Wis. 13:1-10
Rom. 1:20 - Wis. 13:1
Rom. 1:23 - Wis. 11:15; 12:24-27; 13:10; 14:8
Rom. 1:24-27 - Wis. 14:12,24-27
Rom. 4:17 - Sirach 44:19
Rom. 5:12 - Wisdom 2:24
Rom. 9:21 - Wisdom 15:7

1 Cor. 2:16 - Wisdom 9:13
1 Cor. 6:12-13; 10:23-26 - Sirach 36:18 and 37:28-30
1 Cor. 8:5-6 - Wis. 13:3
1 Cor. 10:1 - Wisdom 19:7
1 Cor. 10:20 - Baruch 4:7
1 Cor. 15:29 - 2 Macc. 12:43-45

Eph. 1:17 - Wisdom 7:7
Eph. 6:14 - Wis. 5:18
Eph. 6:13-17 - Wis. 5:17-20

1 Tim. 6:15 - 2 Macc. 12:15; 13:4
2 Tim. 4:8 - Wisdom 5:16

Heb. 4:12 - Wisdom 18:15
Heb. 11:5 - Wis 4:10 and Sir 44:16
Heb 11:35 - 2 Macc. 7:1-42
Heb. 12:12 - Sirach 25:23

James 1:19 - Sirach 5:11
James 2:23 - 1 Macc. 2:52
James 3:13 - Sirach 3:17
James 5:3 - Sirach 29:10-11
James 5:6 - Wisdom 2:10-20

1 Peter 1:6-7 - Wisdom 3:5-6 and Sirach 2:5
1 Peter 1:17 - Sirach 16:12
2 Peter 2:7 - Wisdom 10:6

Rev. 1:4 – Tobit 12:15
Rev. 1:18; Matt. 16:18 - Wis. 16:18
Rev. 2:12 - Wisdom 18:16
Rev. 5:7 - Sirach 1:8
Rev. 8:3-4 - Tobit 12:12,15
Rev. 8:7 - Wisdom 16:22 and Sirach 39:29
Rev. 9:3 - Wisdom 16:9
Rev. 11:19 - 2 Macc. 2:7
Rev. 17:14 - 2 Macc. 13:4
Rev. 19:1 - Tobit 13:18
Rev. 19:11 - 2 Macc. 3:25; 11:8
Rev. 19:16 - 2 Macc. 13:4
Rev. 21:19 - Tobit 13:17

An additional read: All Scripture Is Inspired by God. . .: Thoughts on the Old Testament Canon (http://www.kalvesmaki.com/otcanon.htm)

Remember, Catholic and Orthodox were one in the same until 1054AD. It's the primacy of Peter and his successors that give Catholicism a leg up from Orthodox. As for theosis, although the language and it's philosophical specific meaning can be disconcerting, it's not a problem if you understand it as the preternatural state of Adam and Eve. What is salvation if not to bring humanity back to where it once was before the fall?



I didn't say quote, I said make reference to (slight difference). There are OT books that both Catholics and Protestants agree on that are not quoted in the NT (Joshua, Judges, Ezekiel, Ezra and Chronicles), so lack of a direct quotation does not mean the book isn't inspired.

The list is too large for me to take the time to write them out side-by-side but here they are for your edification. It's pretty clear that Jesus and the Apostles used the Septugaint, so surely it's good enough for you and me. It would be ludicrous to be a Sola Scriptura adherent and not use the same [old testament] scriptures that Jesus Himself used but rather one that was set out by Jews (Jamnia) who also rejected the entire NT (!).

Why were they not accepted as canon until Trent?

What do they contain that is lacking in the 66?

Why were they not accepted as canon until Trent?

What do they contain that is lacking in the 66?

They contain scriptural evidence to some of key teachings of the RCC, i.e., purgatory in 2 Macc. But of course you know that....

Why were they not accepted as canon until Trent?

What do they contain that is lacking in the 66?

As i understand it they had been considered canon prior to Trent they were just REAFFIRMED as such in light of Luther's objections.

Why were they not accepted as canon until Trent?

They were always accepted...until rejected by the Reformers 1500 years later, which is the reason a formal decree at Trent had to be made. Such things are always done when a heresy arises (in this case, Protestantism).

What do they contain that is lacking in the 66?

They contain Catholic doctrines that Protestants don't like such as praying for the dead/purgatory. Protestants would much rather use an OT canon of post-Christ Jews who rejected Christ than the OT canon that Jesus Himself used in an attempt to support their rejection of certain Christian truths. It's ludicrous, even more so when you realize that protesters chose the OT canon of protesters, but that's the nature of Protestantism I guess. :shrug:


So, have you gone through those verses already?

They were always accepted...until rejected by the Reformers 1500 years later, which is the reason a formal decree at Trent had to be made. Such things are always done when a heresy arises (in this case, Protestantism).

Hmm...I've always read that Jews always considered them not inspired. Hence them not included in the Tanakh.

They contain Catholic doctrines that Protestants don't like such as praying for the dead/purgatory. Exactly.


Protestants would much rather use an OT canon of post-Christ Jews who rejected Christ than the OT canon that Jesus Himself used in an attempt to support their rejection of certain Christian truths. It's ludicrous, even more so when you realize that protesters chose the OT canon of protesters, but that's the nature of Protestantism I guess. :shrug:From what I've seen so far, your evidence is weak and circumstantial at best.


So, have you gone through those verses already?Not all of them. Family, work, deacons meetings, sick visits, college etc. demand a lot of time. :)

I will try to put them in a spreadsheet this weekend and read them in context (as I have time).

Copy and Paste

lol...Yes, libby, I copied and pasted text from the Holy Bible. It's quicker that way and they are actual quotes of Scripture verses. The commentaries are originally my writings that I prepared in showing the importance and need for followers of Christ to be guided by God's Holy Spirit. That is the important step to be Born Again, as Jesus said one must be. Yes, i have used this same info on other threads before, so, in that regard, that was a copy & paste of Bible research that I have previously done. It is still a relevant reminder within this thread as well as any other.

( BTW: I still love you as a friend) :flowers:

I don't need to make assumptions. Your posts indicate the fact. :shrug:

Since you've decided to evade my questions by playing semantics with ‘T’ vs. ‘t’, perhaps you could give me an example of a Tradition Catholics practice that have not changed in 2000 years, that are relevent to extra-scriptural doctrine and still remain consistent with the scriptures.

Even though, I would still like to know what led to the Pope – the so-called descendant of Peter – being lavishly adorned in wondrous robes and capped with an elaborate headpiece? I’m sorry, but when I look at the Pope I do not see Peter in an remote way.

alright, that made me laugh, probably would have been ROFL if you had also called me an idiot :yay:

I don't name-call unless you request it.

Even though, I would still like to know what led to the Pope – the so-called descendant of Peter – being lavishly adorned in wondrous robes and capped with an elaborate headpiece? I’m sorry, but when I look at the Pope I do not see Peter in an remote way.

Come on Psy, should he go all Joel Osteen and wear a $2500.00 suit? Should he wear a Hawaiian shirt and Khaki shorts like alot of Protestant non-denom pastors? What should he wear?

The Vatican did away with the Papal Coronation back in the mid 1900s where the Pope was actually crowned and paraded through the streets of Vatican City. (I personally did not like this)

Come on Psy, should he go all Joel Osteen and wear a $2500.00 suit? Should he wear a Hawaiian shirt and Khaki shorts like alot of Protestant non-denom pastors? What should he wear?

The Vatican did away with the Papal Coronation back in the mid 1900s where the Pope was actually crowned and paraded through the streets of Vatican City. (I personally did not like this)

We can’t have this conversation if you’re going to take me out of context. Go back and read my other posts where I have commented on all denoms. I believe I mentioned something about hating organized religion; their big money-making churches and such.

But please, explain to me how this even remotely resembles Peter? How did the CC get to this point where they believe their leader should be dressed like this? What traditions led to this?

Bishops in union with the Holy See in ecumenical councils, and the pope himself.
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Infallibility (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm)
Nothing like using biased Catholic documents to validate your beliefs (Yes I did read it, btw). Why not try an unbiased source...maybe, the BIBLE? Most of that site becomes man made BS when read in light of the Bible.

Btw; Your site rarely mentions the Bible as the basis for their doctrine and it's really sad how they often SAY they're following Scripture when, actually, they only follow it when it fits their agenda.

So back in the 4th century the council determined which books were inspired by god, and then the Protestants hundreds of years later decided to omit some of those books? How could the original council have been wrong if they were guided by god?
The council closed the Canon of the Bible with 66 books, Howard. The RCC added the other books later :duh:

And now again in the sixties this guy Howard long starts a movement to Retranslate the bible and that group edits out several passages. Not just that, but they set up a system to routinely edit the bible, with the most recent version of the NIV coming out in 2011. And there in lies the problem with sola scripture, it all depends on what the writes (translators and editors) believed and what their intention was at the time of their writing.
The NIV Commission set out to make a much clearer translation because a few of the other translations were not really translated well and much of those Victorian English words have changed.

Another reason for doing it was that there was a lot more information available than there was in earlier days (about the meaning of words from other languages) so some of the less clear passages could be made clearer.

And nothing was "edited out" as you say. Many people think the KJV is the "standard" and that's what causes them (and you) to think that verses were omitted. The NIV folks used the actual manuscript copies as their sources for translating. The reason why some of the passages seemed to be omitted, is because they should never have been there in the first place.

We can’t have this conversation if you’re going to take me out of context. Go back and read my other posts where I have commented on all denoms. I believe I mentioned something about hating organized religion; their big money-making churches and such.

But please, explain to me how this even remotely resembles Peter? How did the CC get to this point where they believe their leader should be dressed like this? What traditions led to this?

Here is a link to give you the history and meaning of the vestments wore by Catholic clergy.
None of it is for decoration, it is all steeped in (lower case) tradition, and all items had deep roots in the Jewish and Christian faith. Remember, visual symbols would have been used during all of those centuries that most people were illiterate. For instance, the green on Pope Benedict in the picture you posted in indicative of "ordinary time" in the Church's liturgical year. As oppposed to, for instance, Advent and Lent, times of anticipation, that are symbolized with purple.
All of the ornaments on the pope, many of which you do not see, are profound, IMO.
"The Pope wears the Pallium over his chasuble when celebrating Mass. The pallium is a circular band of fabric about two inches wide, from which two twelve-inch-long pendants hang down, one in the front and one in back. It is ornamented with six small, red crosses distributed about the shoulders, breast and back, and is fixed in place by three golden pins, symbolic of the nails with which Christ was crucified. "
There is lots of history that we just don't discard because we are in the 21st century.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Vestments (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15388a.htm)

What does "how long" have to do with anything? I would argue Pope Benedict XVI has studied longer than you, but you would reject his "interpretations" out of hand, so in your world one thing has nothing to do with the other.
If Benedict has studied longer than I have, he shouldn't have missed the truth and he should know more than I do. Sadly, he doesn't...

I find this particularly abusrd. So men "considered" and "included" what they determined were inspired by God. No, the Holy Spirit led, and men followed. Words mean things.
The available writings were studied and had to meet the requirements for Canonicity. Of course the Sophers had to listen to the Holy Spirit to make sure they were reading the writings correctly. That's why the Holy Spirit didn't tell them to include the Apocryphal writings.

The actual Bible was never edited? What is the "actual" Bible? Where is it, who has it, etc.? The one you have in your hand has never been edited? Has it been translated? Are you a linguist, too? Have you gone to the Greek and Aramaic texts and gone word for word through it? Or are you trusting Simon and Schuster? You're ridiculous.
I meant the manuscript copies. There are over 7,000 copies of the manuscripts available to translate from. Even so, some Bible translations weren't done accurately.
You make me giggle.
I'm soo glad I brighten your day...

If a bible only has 66 books, it is incomplete. Considering Jesus used the Septugaint and actually makes reference to books that the Protestant bible is missing tells us that perhaps you are right when you say that God's Word is not intact AND people misunderstand what is written. How ridiculous is it that a Protestant can cling to Sola Scriptura when they aren't even working with the full scriptures.
It's soo nice to meet someone who knows more than God does :nono: Jesus did no such thing. He referred to OT Scriptures. Paul & Jude have referenced Apocryphal writings even though nothing in them was considered inspired...

Wirelessly posted


Bishops in union with the Holy See in ecumenical councils, and the pope himself.
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Infallibility (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm)
Nothing like using biased Catholic documents to validate your beliefs (Yes I did read it, btw). Why not try an unbiased source...maybe, the BIBLE? Most of that site becomes man made BS when read in light of the Bible.

Btw; Your site rarely mentions the Bible as the basis for their doctrine and it's really sad how they often SAY they're following Scripture when, actually, they only follow it when it fits their agenda.

So back in the 4th century the council determined which books were inspired by god, and then the Protestants hundreds of years later decided to omit some of those books? How could the original council have been wrong if they were guided by god?
The council closed the Canon of the Bible with 66 books, Howard. The RCC added the other books later :duh:

And now again in the sixties this guy Howard long starts a movement to Retranslate the bible and that group edits out several passages. Not just that, but they set up a system to routinely edit the bible, with the most recent version of the NIV coming out in 2011. And there in lies the problem with sola scripture, it all depends on what the writes (translators and editors) believed and what their intention was at the time of their writing.
The NIV Commission set out to make a much clearer translation because a few of the other translations were not really translated well and much of those Victorian English words have changed.

Another reason for doing it was that there was a lot more information available than there was in earlier days (about the meaning of words from other languages) so some of the less clear passages could be made clearer.

And nothing was "edited out" as you say. Many people think the KJV is the "standard" and that's what causes them (and you) to think that verses were omitted. The NIV folks used the actual manuscript copies as their sources for translating. The reason why some of the passages seemed to be omitted, is because they should never have been there in the first place.

You are chaining history to fit your interpretation......
Those "extra books" were considered canon before Luther, and were reaffirmed after his protests. They weren't added later as you want to put it.

What's really funny is that Howard and I have about the same educational background :yay: Maybe i should rewrite the bible in a more understandable and modern language :killingme

Here is a link to give you the history and meaning of the vestments wore by Catholic clergy.
None of it is for decoration, it is all steeped in (lower case) tradition, and all items had deep roots in the Jewish and Christian faith. Remember, visual symbols would have been used during all of those centuries that most people were illiterate. For instance, the green on Pope Benedict in the picture you posted in indicative of "ordinary time" in the Church's liturgical year. As oppposed to, for instance, Advent and Lent, times of anticipation, that are symbolized with purple.
All of the ornaments on the pope, many of which you do not see, are profound, IMO.
"The Pope wears the Pallium over his chasuble when celebrating Mass. The pallium is a circular band of fabric about two inches wide, from which two twelve-inch-long pendants hang down, one in the front and one in back. It is ornamented with six small, red crosses distributed about the shoulders, breast and back, and is fixed in place by three golden pins, symbolic of the nails with which Christ was crucified. "
There is lots of history that we just don't discard because we are in the 21st century.

There is not one bit of it that is steeped in the ‘tradition’ of Jesus. Jesus was a simple man, wearing very simple clothes. No money, no home. He told the rich man to sell all he had, give it to the poor and follow Him. He warned the Sanhedrin of doing things publically and bringing attention on themselves rather than God. Jesus and Peter did not adorn themselves in grand clothing. He had no visual symbols except himself. It’s not required and definitely not necessary.

When I see the pope I sort turn my head sideways asking myself “why is that necessary?”, I’m more concerned with practices; teachings. Why all the lavish rituals? They aren’t necessary to get closer to God. But when we get the little things – like what we wear – all messed up (pardon the verbiage) how are we expected to get the big things – like God’s message – right? How do you expect me to trust a religion that their leader is dressed in a way that does nothing more than say “Look at how great and powerful I am” and demands people kiss his ring, call him ‘holy’ and virtually worship his very presence? How am I to trust a protestant pastor that stands up there in his $3000 suit, massive church, $50,000 Cadillac, and $1.5 million home and tell us how to live a humble life before God? How am I supposed to trust a church leader, that abuses his own kids and wife, to teach us how to love, honor and cherish my family? How am I to trust a preacher that promotes speaking in tongues, and other ‘gifts’ when they are used in a manner that is completely unbiblical and tell me how to get closer to the Holy Spirit?

I hear and see a lot of noise in our churches; but very little about God. I’ve stated it before, I believe if Jesus were here today he’d have a lot to say about what’s going on in all of our churches; and no one is going to like what they hear.

This is just my HUMBLE opinion.

There is not one bit of it that is steeped in the ‘tradition’ of Jesus. Jesus was a simple man, wearing very simple clothes. No money, no home. He told the rich man to sell all he had, give it to the poor and follow Him. He warned the Sanhedrin of doing things publically and bringing attention on themselves rather than God. Jesus and Peter did not adorn themselves in grand clothing. He had no visual symbols except himself. It’s not required and definitely not necessary.

When I see the pope I sort turn my head sideways asking myself “why is that necessary?”, I’m more concerned with practices; teachings. Why all the lavish rituals? They aren’t necessary to get closer to God. But when we get the little things – like what we wear – all messed up (pardon the verbiage) how are we expected to get the big things – like God’s message – right? How do you expect me to trust a religion that their leader is dressed in a way that does nothing more than say “Look at how great and powerful I am” and demands people kiss his ring, call him ‘holy’ and virtually worship his very presence? How am I to trust a protestant pastor that stands up there in his $3000 suit, massive church, $50,000 Cadillac, and $1.5 million home and tell us how to live a humble life before God? How am I supposed to trust a church leader, that abuses his own kids and wife, to teach us how to love, honor and cherish my family? How am I to trust a preacher that promotes speaking in tongues, and other ‘gifts’ when they are used in a manner that is completely unbiblical and tell me how to get closer to the Holy Spirit?

I hear and see a lot of noise in our churches; but very little about God. I’ve stated it before, I believe if Jesus were here today he’d have a lot to say about what’s going on in all of our churches; and no one is going to like what they hear.

This is just my HUMBLE opinion.

Well, I certainly understand why it appears to you to be "Look at how great I am", but really, if you've ever read or listened to BXVI then you would not think that he thinks himself something special. Neither did JPII. Our first president did not reside in, or live like, Obama does, but does that make it wrong that Obama resides in such a glorious place as the White House? I mean, he does have to receive heads of state, as does the pope. None of it actually belongs to Obama, and nothing in the Vatican belongs to the pope. If the pope were taking vacations to Hawaii, I would cry foul, but that is not how he lives.
Is the ritual surrounding the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier unecessary? Rituals are supposed to remind of of something sacred, and if we've moved away from that as an individual or a society, it doesn't make the ritual wrong.
Does a gov't require offices to keep track of whatever-gov't-legitimately-must-keep-track-of? The Holy See has work to do around the globe and certainly they keep track of their clergy, their faithful, and the monies they do raise and use for relief services throughout the world. And the world is a big place, I'm sure the Vatican is no bigger than it needs to be.
What about the art that was commissioned or donated over the centuries? Do those pieces get thrown out, or is it appropriate to maintain the Sistine Chapel for it's historicity as well as it's religious significance?
The ring is ornamental today, yes. But, historically it sealed correspondence from the pope. A wedding ring is ornamental and has nothing to do with the vow taken, yet we still wear them. Do we throw out everything that ties us to our heritage?
With respect to what we wear, for instance, you think dressing up is...superficial? When I go to the presence of the Lord, if I had nothing else then sure, I'd wear my jeans. But, does God expect me to put at least as much effort into going into His Presence as I do going out to dinner? I think so. Let me re-iterate, it is not a condition of welcoming into a church, but it's about your internal disposition when going before the Lord. God gets the best I have, not my sloppy seconds.
As for the pastors that are living lavishly. I don't know any Protestant pastors, but I do know a fair number of Protestants, and I doubt they would follow such a man as you are describing. That said, I think you are arguing the exception and not the rule, and that's not fair to the thousands who serve their flocks day after day.
JMHO.:flowers:

Since you've decided to evade my questions by playing semantics with ‘T’ vs. ‘t’, perhaps you could give me an example of a Tradition Catholics practice that have not changed in 2000 years, that are relevent to extra-scriptural doctrine and still remain consistent with the scriptures.

Even though, I would still like to know what led to the Pope – the so-called descendant of Peter – being lavishly adorned in wondrous robes and capped with an elaborate headpiece? I’m sorry, but when I look at the Pope I do not see Peter in an remote way.

To put it as simply as I can Tradition with a big T is doctrinal, such as the books in the NT (ironic that eh?) as well as the interpretation thereof; things that cannot be found in that very same scripture. Tradition does not necessarily have to be consistent with the bible. I will reiterate - Tradition and Scripture go hand-in-hand; they are two halves to God's revelation. Even the scripture you hold so dear says that it does not contain everything; the everything else is Tradition. Another irony is that Sola Scriptura is a Protestant use of their own form of Tradition; it can't be found in scripture but yet it is your (well most anyway) doctrine.

Tradition is not what the pope wears, our Christmas tree at Christmas or any such other things that has meaning and gives richness to our lives; that would be tradition with a small t.

I kind of doubt this clears things up for you, as you seem intent on telling me you know what Tradition is and continually give examples of what it is not, but I hope it does.

Come on Psy, should he go all Joel Osteen and wear a $2500.00 suit? Should he wear a Hawaiian shirt and Khaki shorts like alot of Protestant non-denom pastors? What should he wear?

The Vatican did away with the Papal Coronation back in the mid 1900s where the Pope was actually crowned and paraded through the streets of Vatican City. (I personally did not like this)

Apparently the Pope should wear a robe and sandals 12 months out of the year. I think Psy should wear a robe and sandals 12 months out of the year too.

Nothing like using biased Catholic documents to validate your beliefs (Yes I did read it, btw). Why not try an unbiased source...maybe, the BIBLE? Most of that site becomes man made BS when read in light of the Bible.

:blahblah: :blahblah rhetoric snipped.

You wouldn't have the bible if it were not for that other infallible body, IS; therefore, you are calling the bible itself manmade BS. Like I said, the bible cannot be infallible without an infallible interpreter. That's made clear every day on the religion forum here.

I'm soo glad I brighten your day...

I guess you're good for something.


It's soo nice to meet someone who knows more than God does :nono: Jesus did no such thing. He referred to OT Scriptures. Paul & Jude have referenced Apocryphal writings even though nothing in them was considered inspired...

Durp durp! The Septuagint is the OT scriptures.

Wow, you just brightened my day even more. :killingme

What's really funny is that Howard and I have about the same educational background :yay: Maybe i should rewrite the bible in a more understandable and modern language :killingme
Go for it! :yay:

Considering Jesus used the Septugaint and actually makes reference to books that the Protestant bible is missing tells us that perhaps you are right when you say that God's Word is not intact AND people misunderstand what is written. How ridiculous is it that a Protestant can cling to Sola Scriptura when they aren't even working with the full scriptures. Durp durp! The Septuagint is the OT scriptures.
My bad. I was soo engrossed in the Apocrypha discussion that I misread what you said. I've re-quoted it here. So where does Jesus quote a "missing" book?

Actually what's ridiculous is how you all ADD to the Scriptures after God has strictly forbidden it...:shrug:

You wouldn't have the bible if it were not for that other infallible body, IS; therefore, you are calling the bible itself manmade BS. Like I said, the bible cannot be infallible without an infallible interpreter. That's made clear every day on the religion forum here.
:nono: You know me better than that. All your people did was put it together. They were NOT responsible for anything written in it. Kind of like librarians...God can use anyone to do His work. In fact, it was probably one of the few times the RCC listened to God...

God is that "infallible interpreter". He teaches us what it says but we must be listening properly to Him to understand it.

Go for it! :yay:

My bad. I was soo engrossed in the Apocrypha discussion that I misread what you said. I've re-quoted it here. So where does Jesus quote a "missing" book?

I said make reference to, see the list already posted.

:nono: You know me better than that. All your people did was put it together. They were NOT responsible for anything written in it. Kind of like librarians...God can use anyone to do His work. In fact, it was probably one of the few times the RCC listened to God...

God is that "infallible interpreter". He teaches us what it says but we must be listening properly to Him to understand it.

And how did "my people" know what books to use? If that body is infallible, then so is the bible.

The bible cannot translate itself. That is circular reasoning and a logical fallacy. How do you know you're reading it correctly or listening to God properly? You don't. You can tell me the bible itself tells you you're reading it correctly or God somehow told you so, but so will the Mormons, the JWs, the Gnostics, etc and so forth all who claim to have the Holy Spirit. :crazy:

I said make reference to, see the list already posted.
That list is not correct. A few forumites have already shot it down.

And how did "my people" know what books to use? If that body is infallible, then so is the bible. The bible cannot translate itself. That is circular reasoning and a logical fallacy.
They actually understood what the test for Canonicity was AND they listened to the Holy Spirit. Of course, this was done before the RCC became infected with pagan doctrines so they COULD hear God's voice.

How do you know you're reading it correctly or listening to God properly? You don't. You can tell me the bible itself tells you you're reading it correctly or God somehow told you so, but so will the Mormons, the JWs, the Gnostics, etc and so forth all who claim to have the Holy Spirit. :crazy:
Ahh but I do read it correctly. What I say fits the context. That's how I know I'm reading it correctly. To most believers, it's easy to spot a counterfeit doctrine. Why can't your people?

Enjoy your Catholicism; there's nothing I can do to un-indoctrinate you...

Enjoy your Catholicism; there's nothing I can do to un-indoctrinate you...[/QUOTE]


And this is your problem! It is not your job to "un-indoctrinate"! You have convinced yourself that the Holy Spirit is working through you! The Holy Spirit might use you as a pencil, but he will do the writing on the heart!

That list is not correct. A few forumites have already shot it down.

Yeah, someone questioned 2 out of that very extensive list, that's shot down alright. :rolleyes:

They actually understood what the test for Canonicity was AND they listened to the Holy Spirit. Of course, this was done before the RCC became infected with pagan doctrines so they COULD hear God's voice.

What was the test for canonicity but Tradition?

At least you are now admitting that the Catholic Church existed before Constantine. I'm so proud of you!! :huggy:

Ahh but I do read it correctly. What I say fits the context. That's how I know I'm reading it correctly. To most believers, it's easy to spot a counterfeit doctrine. Why can't your people?

So, you claim to be reading it correctly because you say you're reading it correctly. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! :roflmao:

Enjoy your Catholicism; there's nothing I can do to un-indoctrinate you...

Thank you, I will. I imagine the Holy Spirit finally told you to shut the hell up. YAY GOD! :bann:

To put it as simply as I can Tradition with a big T is doctrinal, such as the books in the NT (ironic that eh?) as well as the interpretation thereof; things that cannot be found in that very same scripture. Tradition does not necessarily have to be consistent with the bible. I will reiterate - Tradition and Scripture go hand-in-hand; they are two halves to God's revelation. Even the scripture you hold so dear says that it does not contain everything; the everything else is Tradition. Another irony is that Sola Scriptura is a Protestant use of their own form of Tradition; it can't be found in scripture but yet it is your (well most anyway) doctrine.

Tradition is not what the pope wears, our Christmas tree at Christmas or any such other things that has meaning and gives richness to our lives; that would be tradition with a small t.

I kind of doubt this clears things up for you, as you seem intent on telling me you know what Tradition is and continually give examples of what it is not, but I hope it does.

You can stop trying to educate me on ‘T’ vs ‘t’. You’re wasting your time especially when you consider that these traditions (t) overlap into Traditions (T). As an example the tradition of having a Pope (T) is intermingled with how this Pope adorns himself (t) as a means to segregate himself from the ordinary believer, and those ordinary believers kneel and kiss (T) his ring (t) as a means to show their faith towards the Church (T). Until you recognize this your attempts to educate me are flawed. In practice, you cannot compartmentalize how you practice your faith.

Here’s where you destroy your argument… If Tradition (T) can be contrary (not consistent) to the bible, which is right? Don’t you refer to the bible as HOLY? If it is HOLY, is it not infallible? If it’s infallible, how can anything you do be contrary to it? This is why your Traditions and traditions are flawed. They do not adhere to a standard. The written word does not change. If I write down “The grass is green”, it does not change no matter how many people might interpret what it says differently. The truth is still the truth.

Apparently the Pope should wear a robe and sandals 12 months out of the year. I think Psy should wear a robe and sandals 12 months out of the year too.

YES! You get it! If the Pope is a direct extension of Peter, thus a direct extension of Jesus, he should live his life in the same manner as Jesus and Peter. He should dress very humbly and live very humbly. Instead he lives lavishly in ways most people can only dream. Your faith demands he be called HOLY, eminence, he is knelt to and his ring kissed. This is NOT the life of humility and service to others. You only prove all the more how the pope does not reflect the humility Jesus commands us to live. Don't get all snarky about robes and sandels. I'm assuming you know what means to be humble; especially if you're supposed to be that epitomal example of humility.

You have no clue how I dress. I wear very modest clothes even though I can afford pretty expensive suits and shoes. We're talking about the Pope and Traditions here. Leave my personal life out of this. It has nothing to do with the discussion; especially since you don't know the first thing about me. It does not strengthen your position one bit. It only weakens it.

YES! You get it! If the Pope is a direct extension of Peter, thus a direct extension of Jesus, he should live his life in the same manner as Jesus and Peter. He should dress very humbly and live very humbly.I agree. Pomp and circumstance do not befit any Christian.


You have no clue how I dress. I wear very modest clothes even though I can afford pretty expensive suits and shoes. We're talking about the Pope and Traditions here. Leave my personal life out of this. It has nothing to do with the discussion; especially since you don't know the first thing about me. It does not strengthen your position one bit. It only weakens it.I disagree. You invited scrutiny of your own life when you judged how somebody else lives.

I disagree. You invited scrutiny of your own life when you judged how somebody else lives.

The pope is not just anybody. He is the voice of God to Catholics. I am not judging the pope; I am giving my views on the practices within the Catholic Church.

Found this online. Thought is summed it up pretty well.

Apostolic Succession is as Easy as WWJD
In Scripture, we are given a record of Jesus handing off his authority to His Apostles. What were his Apostles to imply from this act? That the kingdom would die upon their death? Do we have one word from Christ instructing them to “write down this Gospel so it might be the ‘sole rule of faith’”? No, not at all. Instead, they did what he did. They passed off their ministry to successors. That is why St. Paul says in 2 Timothy 3:14:

“But continue thou in those things which thou hast learned, and which have been committed to thee: knowing of whom thou hast learned them.”

I imagine the scene like this:

[moments after the Ascension]

Apostle A: "What are we going to do?"

Apostle B: "Write a book!"

Apostles C: "Bad idea. Too costly. Not enough people can read. Plus, did anybody notice Jesus writing anything down?"

Apostle E: "Nice point, Apostle C."

Apostle F: "What would Jesus do?" (peering down at his bracelet)

Apostle G: "I remember Jesus saying, 'Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you.' Maybe we should do that?

Apostle B: "Do what?"

Apostle F: "Pass our ministry off to successors. Send them. Duh."

I am totally loving this thread!

Found this online. Thought is summed it up pretty well.

Apostolic Succession is as Easy as WWJD
In Scripture, we are given a record of Jesus handing off his authority to His Apostles. What were his Apostles to imply from this act? That the kingdom would die upon their death? Do we have one word from Christ instructing them to “write down this Gospel so it might be the ‘sole rule of faith’”? No, not at all. Instead, they did what he did. They passed off their ministry to successors. That is why St. Paul says in 2 Timothy 3:14:

“But continue thou in those things which thou hast learned, and which have been committed to thee: knowing of whom thou hast learned them.”

I imagine the scene like this:

[moments after the Ascension]

Apostle A: "What are we going to do?"

Apostle B: "Write a book!"

Apostles C: "Bad idea. Too costly. Not enough people can read. Plus, did anybody notice Jesus writing anything down?"

Apostle E: "Nice point, Apostle C."

Apostle F: "What would Jesus do?" (peering down at his bracelet)

Apostle G: "I remember Jesus saying, 'Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you.' Maybe we should do that?

Apostle B: "Do what?"

Apostle F: "Pass our ministry off to successors. Send them. Duh."

When Jesus started his ministry, what was one of His first acts?

He came to Nazareth, where he had grown up, and went according to his custom into the synagogue on the sabbath day. He stood up to read and was handed a scroll of the prophet Isaiah. He unrolled the scroll and found the passage where it was written... - Luke 4:16-17

When John was taken up by the angel to witness the Revelation of Jesus Christ what was he told to do?

The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to him, to show his servants what must happen soon. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John,a who gives witness to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ by reporting what he saw. Blessed is the one who reads aloud and blessed are those who listen to this prophetic message and heed what is written in it, for the appointed time is near - Revelation 1:1-3

Found this online. Thought is summed it up pretty well.

Apostolic Succession is as Easy as WWJD
In Scripture, we are given a record of Jesus handing off his authority to His Apostles. What were his Apostles to imply from this act? That the kingdom would die upon their death? Do we have one word from Christ instructing them to “write down this Gospel so it might be the ‘sole rule of faith’”? No, not at all. Instead, they did what he did. They passed off their ministry to successors. That is why St. Paul says in 2 Timothy 3:14:

“But continue thou in those things which thou hast learned, and which have been committed to thee: knowing of whom thou hast learned them.”

I imagine the scene like this:

[moments after the Ascension]

Apostle A: "What are we going to do?"

Apostle B: "Write a book!"

Apostles C: "Bad idea. Too costly. Not enough people can read. Plus, did anybody notice Jesus writing anything down?"

Apostle E: "Nice point, Apostle C."

Apostle F: "What would Jesus do?" (peering down at his bracelet)

Apostle G: "I remember Jesus saying, 'Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you.' Maybe we should do that?

Apostle B: "Do what?"

Apostle F: "Pass our ministry off to successors. Send them. Duh."

Good try, libby, but not exactly the way it happened.

First: The Jews had already compiled the Old Testament writings that they referred to in their teachings. The OT Prophets did not pass along their succession to others. Each were individually chosen by God and their sayings were written down individually and compiled as a collection. Even Jesus referred to and cited those writings numerous times throughout the New Testament when He would remind the "religious leaders" about "It is Written..."

Second: Your comment about the Apostles getting together to "write a book" is not relevant because the writings are compilations of individual letters/correspondence that were being exchanged back and forth between the Apostles and also addressed to the churches and various groups within the churches. Those letters were preserved and selected to be included for teaching about the life and ministry and first-hand experiences of the Apostles. Additionally they were inspired writings that contained words which the Holy Spirit brought into remembrance so that the Apostles who were with Jesus could write them down so that the world would know about God's Plan of Salvation and the relationship that mankind can have with God through Christ. Yes, Jesus allowed the Apostles to write their experiences down for posterity to teach, edify and warn the future generations of mankind. Here are just a few examples showing that the Disciples were prompted to write down their experiences and teachings of Christ so that they could be passed along:


And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. (John 20:30-31)

For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.
(Romans 15:4)

Now all these things happened unto them for examples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.
(1 Corinthians 10:11)

I write unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I write unto you, young men, because ye have overcome the wicked one. I write unto you, little children, because ye have known the Father. I have written unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I have written unto you, young men, because ye are strong, and the word of God abideth in you, and ye have overcome the wicked one. Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. (1 John 2:13-15)

And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.
(1 John 5:11-13)

And this is your problem! It is not your job to "un-indoctrinate"! You have convinced yourself that the Holy Spirit is working through you! The Holy Spirit might use you as a pencil, but he will do the writing on the heart!
Would you like the verses and commands of God that show it IS my job to un-indoctrinate people? But before I do, would you believe them if I posted them? I'l give you 2 as bait:

16 "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness..." (2 Timothy 3)

2 "Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction. For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine." (2 Timothy 4)

What was the test for canonicity but Tradition?
1) Did the writing in question agree with God’s message found in ALL the other inspired books? All of the Apocryphal books did not.
2) Were the authors really men of God?
3) Many of the ancient writings were about God, but they weren't automatically considered inspired because of rule 1 above. The N.T. books were written mostly by Apostles or close associates, so they were considered inspired. However, their authority was NOT determined by the compilers of the Bible but by the testimony of the writing itself.

At least you are now admitting that the Catholic Church existed before Constantine. I'm so proud of you!! :huggy:
Actually I'm not. The RC doctrine was being formed under Constantine early in the 4th century and the compilation process started shortly after that.
And before you start your victory dance again, it's not like they woke up that morning and decided to compile it. God spoke to them and: "they...were carried along by the Holy Spirit." There was no RC influence during the time of the compilation of the Bible.

So, you claim to be reading it correctly because you say you're reading it correctly. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! :roflmao:
Your honor, the plaintiff is incapable of thinking clearly; Case dismissed. :shrug:

Thank you, I will. I imagine the Holy Spirit finally told you to shut the hell up. YAY GOD! :bann:
Nice! :duh: How liberal sounding you are...

When Jesus started his ministry, what was one of His first acts?



When John was taken up by the angel to witness the Revelation of Jesus Christ what was he told to do?

This is about what Jesus told them to do.

This is about what Jesus told them to do.

Yep, Jesus told His disciples that the Holy Spirit would be sent to remind them of what He taught. That way they don't go about straying from the Truth by adding extra-Biblical teachings that were not what Jesus taught.

The Holy Spirit of God is the Spirit of Truth.

These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you. But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. (John 14:25-26)

I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
(John 16:12-14)

This is about what Jesus told them to do.

Not sure what you mean here.

I was pointing out how, in the very first act of Jesus' ministry that He went right to the WRITTEN word. Throughout his ministry he chastised the Jewish leaders for not following God's word and constantly used WRITTEN scripture to support his message.

When John was given the Revelation of Jesus Christ he was told to write it down. God even warned:

I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.

The written Word is our standard. Nothing by mouth or 'tradition' can run contrary to what is written.

Here’s where you destroy your argument… If Tradition (T) can be contrary (not consistent) to the bible, which is right? Don’t you refer to the bible as HOLY? If it is HOLY, is it not infallible? If it’s infallible, how can anything you do be contrary to it? This is why your Traditions and traditions are flawed. They do not adhere to a standard. The written word does not change. If I write down “The grass is green”, it does not change no matter how many people might interpret what it says differently. The truth is still the truth.

To what standard is the bible when it was compiled, Psy? Tradition. That which was handed on to the Apostles from Christ and thereon out.

I'll repeat, again, Tradition and scripture go hand-in-hand. Scripture is only infallible with an infallible interpreter. If you write from the words of Jesus Himself that the grass is green and 1500 years later someone says that you meant blue and bases their life on it, then there's a problem. You're absolutely right in that the truth is the grass is green; however, the person 1500 years from your writing doesn't know it and has no way to verify if relying on your writing alone in which they think you mean blue.

YES! You get it! If the Pope is a direct extension of Peter, thus a direct extension of Jesus, he should live his life in the same manner as Jesus and Peter. He should dress very humbly and live very humbly. Instead he lives lavishly in ways most people can only dream. Your faith demands he be called HOLY, eminence, he is knelt to and his ring kissed. This is NOT the life of humility and service to others. You only prove all the more how the pope does not reflect the humility Jesus commands us to live. Don't get all snarky about robes and sandels. I'm assuming you know what means to be humble; especially if you're supposed to be that epitomal example of humility.

You have no clue how I dress. I wear very modest clothes even though I can afford pretty expensive suits and shoes. We're talking about the Pope and Traditions here. Leave my personal life out of this. It has nothing to do with the discussion; especially since you don't know the first thing about me. It does not strengthen your position one bit. It only weakens it.

Well, I think you should give up your Sola Scriptura stance, but yet you don't. So what.

You're right, I don't know much about you. You could be living in a McMansion while pointing fingers at others. So, you're a disciple of Christ? Then live and dress like they did. Get your fishing pole and carpenter tools ready, and shut that electricity off while you're at it as it's a not-so-humble luxury (imo).

The pope is not just anybody. He is the voice of God to Catholics. I am not judging the pope; I am giving my views on the practices within the Catholic Church.

Actually, you are. You have no idea how he lives his life in a daily manner. Do you think the Pope's personal bank account is full of millions or something? :rolleyes:

When Jesus started his ministry, what was one of His first acts?

When John was taken up by the angel to witness the Revelation of Jesus Christ what was he told to do?

Actually, when Jesus started His ministry He performed a miracle at the bequest of His mother.

John was commanded to report what he saw and write on a scroll; however, that can't be said for the others books in the bible.

What you see in the bible is Tradition at work. To "go forth and preach to all nations" would include BOTH word of mouth AND writings. In fact, in those writings it is said that there is much more than what has been written. The writings are a result of Tradition itself.

There really is no way to get around that logic, sorry. You may not like it, you may not agree with it, but there it is nonetheless. You can base your entire faith on what is written, and that is fine and good; however, you won't have the fullness of Truth by doing so. In fact, you just might think the grass is blue when it's really green.

Good try, libby, but not exactly the way it happened.

First: The Jews had already compiled the Old Testament writings that they referred to in their teachings. The OT Prophets did not pass along their succession to others. Each were individually chosen by God and their sayings were written down individually and compiled as a collection. Even Jesus referred to and cited those writings numerous times throughout the New Testament when He would remind the "religious leaders" about "It is Written..."

What did the Jews do before there was an OT canon established? And, once something was established, which compilation did they use? Which compilation did Jesus use? Is it the same as you use? Hint: Jesus used the Septuagint, you of the non-Apostolic Christian faith do not.

Second: Your comment about the Apostles getting together to "write a book" is not relevant because the writings are compilations of individual letters/correspondence that were being exchanged back and forth between the Apostles and also addressed to the churches and various groups within the churches. Those letters were preserved and selected to be included for teaching about the life and ministry and first-hand experiences of the Apostles. Additionally they were inspired writings that contained words which the Holy Spirit brought into remembrance so that the Apostles who were with Jesus could write them down so that the world would know about God's Plan of Salvation and the relationship that mankind can have with God through Christ. Yes, Jesus allowed the Apostles to write their experiences down for posterity to teach, edify and warn the future generations of mankind. Here are just a few examples showing that the Disciples were prompted to write down their experiences and teachings of Christ so that they could be passed along:

You're absolutely right. The Apostles did not get together and write a book! Those writings that did end up in the bible were a result of Tradition. In addition, not all the writings were by the original 12 Apostles but yet you call them Apostles, great! You're catching on to the laying on of hands and Apostolic succession, and the promise of the Holy Spirit therewith. :clap: Finally, those writings also state that there is much more than has been written, so if you rely on those writings alone where does that leave you but with partial truth (and that's assuming you interpret those writings correctly, which you don't or you wouldn't be relying on those writings alone).

Btw, in 1John it states "I write unto you, fathers,..." :gasp: Did the writer of that particular book call someone else father? Obviously he did, although IRONICALLY those of the Sola Scriptura persuasion would claim you can't do that. :jameo: Like I said, scripture is only infallible with an infallible interpreter.

Would you like the verses and commands of God that show it IS my job to un-indoctrinate people? But before I do, would you believe them if I posted them? I'l give you 2 as bait:

16 "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness..." (2 Timothy 3)

2 "Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction. For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine." (2 Timothy 4)

Absolutely! And we are not putting up with the unsound doctrine that started 1500 years after the ministry of Christ. Sola Scriptura is a ludicrous farse!!

1) Did the writing in question agree with God’s message found in ALL the other inspired books? All of the Apocryphal books did not.
2) Were the authors really men of God?
3) Many of the ancient writings were about God, but they weren't automatically considered inspired because of rule 1 above. The N.T. books were written mostly by Apostles or close associates, so they were considered inspired. However, their authority was NOT determined by the compilers of the Bible but by the testimony of the writing itself.

:whoosh:

Who decided what was inspired, IS? That's what it will always come down to and you know this or you wouldn't claim that such personages had the Holy Spirit at least in that respect. :lol:

Actually I'm not. The RC doctrine was being formed under Constantine early in the 4th century and the compilation process started shortly after that.
And before you start your victory dance again, it's not like they woke up that morning and decided to compile it. God spoke to them and: "they...were carried along by the Holy Spirit." There was no RC influence during the time of the compilation of the Bible.

So, they were carried along by the Holy Spirit only at that point, but not before or any time thereafter because you say so in order to fit your unsound doctrine. :roflmao:

Your honor, the plaintiff is incapable of thinking clearly; Case dismissed. :shrug:

EXACTLY! The ludicrousness of Sola Scriptura has been sufficiently and adequately presented here and there's no sense continually talking past each other. I rest my case. Case dismissed!

Squawk on brother, squawk on.

To what standard is the bible when it was compiled, Psy? Tradition. That which was handed on to the Apostles from Christ and thereon out.

I'll repeat, again, Tradition and scripture go hand-in-hand. Scripture is only infallible with an infallible interpreter. If you write from the words of Jesus Himself that the grass is green and 1500 years later someone says that you meant blue and bases their life on it, then there's a problem. You're absolutely right in that the truth is the grass is green; however, the person 1500 years from your writing doesn't know it and has no way to verify if relying on your writing alone in which they think you mean blue.

You are confusing Tradition with FACT? When the original Gospels were written they were written based in facts on actual accounts of Christ, not some Tradition passed on from one generation to the next.

But you say Tradition and scripture go hand-in-hand when you wrote “Tradition does not necessarily have to be consistent with the bible”. You seem to want it both ways. You claim the bible is only infallible with an infallible interpreter. A tree is still a tree even if there is no one there to say it’s a tree. There are central truths to the bible that exist no matter who is reading or interpreting it. If I interpret that Jesus was just an extraordinary man that lived on this earth and nothing more, that doesn’t take away the central truth that Jesus is the Christ, the savior of our souls.

Well, I think you should give up your Sola Scriptura stance, but yet you don't. So what.

You're right, I don't know much about you. You could be living in a McMansion while pointing fingers at others. So, you're a disciple of Christ? Then live and dress like they did. Get your fishing pole and carpenter tools ready, and shut that electricity off while you're at it as it's a not-so-humble luxury (imo).

You’re just being silly because you can’t justify the extravagant lifestyle the pope lives. You know darn well I’m not suggesting anyone wear robes, sandals, go fishing, etc…

Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others.
In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:
Who, being in very nature of God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
and being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross! - Philippians 2:3-8

In the same way, you who are younger, submit yourselves to your elders. All of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, because,
“God opposes the proud
but shows favor to the humble – 1 Peter 5:5

Actually, you are. You have no idea how he lives his life in a daily manner. Do you think the Pope's personal bank account is full of millions or something?

The Pope has access to unlimited funds. He lives a very lavish life. Whether it is technically his is moot. I’m talking more about how Catholics revere the pope. I’m more concerned with how the pope allows people to kneel before him, to kiss his ring and to essentially worship him, and deem him as the voice of God. And that he parades himself around in a manner that demands such worship. This includes adorning himself in lavish clothing. It’s less to do with his clothes than it is about the whole atmosphere surrounding him. This, IN MY OPINION, is contrary to how we are commanded to behave.

Actually, when Jesus started His ministry He performed a miracle at the bequest of His mother.

John was commanded to report what he saw and write on a scroll; however, that can't be said for the others books in the bible.

What you see in the bible is Tradition at work. To "go forth and preach to all nations" would include BOTH word of mouth AND writings. In fact, in those writings it is said that there is much more than what has been written. The writings are a result of Tradition itself.

There really is no way to get around that logic, sorry. You may not like it, you may not agree with it, but there it is nonetheless. You can base your entire faith on what is written, and that is fine and good; however, you won't have the fullness of Truth by doing so. In fact, you just might think the grass is blue when it's really green.

Oh for crying out loud. I'm trying to point out the importance of scripture (THE WRITTEN WORD) and you're talking about making water into wine. :rolleyes:

I am not suggesting word-of-mouth is not necessary. I am saying that anything said word-of-mouth must be consistent with the bible. As I mentioned before, through Jesus’ ministry He relied on scripture to support everything he did.

Actually, you are. You have no idea how he lives his life in a daily manner. Do you think the Pope's personal bank account is full of millions or something?
I have to add to this. Pope JPII, in his will, left nothing to anyone. He owned nothing.
The pope has an apartment in the Vatican, but I am certain it's nothing like Manhattan luxury apartments. It's a studio, no doubt.

The Vatican is not a palace.

The Vatican has offices, as I pointed out before, as well as places to care for/restore the treasures from antiquity. What do you think ought to be done with the Sistine Chapel, the Pieta and other works of Michaelangelo? What about the Vatican Library, with countless documents from the early church? I expected you to be a little more fair-minded on this point.

As for the pope's robes. I mean, seriously? Do you actually think he prefers such garments, for hours on end, as he fulfills his duties? You think summers in Italy are conducive to mulitple layers of robes? Nope, but I dare say he does it because they are a reminder of something much more important than his own comfort.

Wirelessly posted

Actually, you are. You have no idea how he lives his life in a daily manner. Do you think the Pope's personal bank account is full of millions or something?
I have to add to this. Pope JPII, in his will, left nothing to anyone. He owned nothing.
The pope has an apartment in the Vatican, but I am certain it's nothing like Manhattan luxury apartments. It's a studio, no doubt.

The Vatican is not a palace.

The Vatican has offices, as I pointed out before, as well as places to care for/restore the treasures from antiquity. What do you think ought to be done with the Sistine Chapel, the Pieta and other works of Michaelangelo? What about the Vatican Library, with countless documents from the early church? I expected you to be a little more fair-minded on this point.

As for the pope's robes. I mean, seriously? Do you actually think he prefers such garments, for hours on end, as he fulfills his duties? You think summers in Italy are conducive to mulitple layers of robes? Nope, but I dare say he does it because they are a reminder of something much more important than his own comfort.

Having been to the vatican I can say it is most definately a palace. In fact it is it's own city with a palace and a museum and lots of administration buildings.

But having been around the catholic church most of my life I can say that no catholics I know consider the pope godly nor do they pray to him. He is he lead spokesperson for the church.

You are confusing Tradition with FACT? When the original Gospels were compiled they were written based in facts on actual accounts of Christ, not some Tradition passed on from one generation to the next.
Not all the Gospel writers walked with Christ, so yes, it was based on a Traditional account when they wrote it down.

You’re just being silly because you can’t justify the extravagant lifestyle the pope lives. You know darn well I’m not suggesting anyone wear robes, sandals, go fishing, etc…

Actually, that is exactly what I think you intended to say. If that's the criteria, then I guess Brian David Mitchell should be heard because he slummed around the streets of Utah and called himself Immanuel.

I’m more concerned with how the pope allows people to kneel before him, to kiss his ring and to essentially worship him, and deem him as the voice of God. And that he parades himself around in a manner that demands such worship.


Demands?? Demands such worship? Well if that doesn't let us all know that you're approaching this with bias I don't know what will!
I've asked this before, and I'll ask it again. Do you bow your head in prayer as you hold your Bible? Perhaps as you contemplate what you just read? If you deny doing this, can you at least admit that there are Bible Christians who would? Does this mean you "worship" the book itself, or are you bowing to that which the book represents?
Is your Bible with Field and Stream next to your potty, or does it warrant a special place in the living room? Does that mean you worship the book itself?

He represents a holy institution, that is why he is revered. Obama, as unworthy as he is of the office of the President, receives due honor wherever he goes as a result of that office. If you had the opportunity to meet Queen Elizabeth, would you refuse the invite because of the protocols for the Queen that "demand" you bow/curtsy when you meet her?

The Pope has access to unlimited funds. When was the last time you heard a report of the pope taking a lavish vacation on the French Riviera? When was the last time you caught the pope eating caviar and sipping champagne? It's NOT his money! This is another blatantly prejudiced statement.
Yeah, his vehicle is considered fancy by today's everyday standards, but I don't think Kia makes a bulletproof vehicle, and as we all saw in 1981, there are people who want to kill the pope. He is a head of state, and heads of state are often at the Vatican, so securing the facility is rather important, wouldn't you say?

As R1 said, you simply cannot get around the fact the the Bible was put together using Sacred Tradition.

Wirelessly posted



Having been to the vatican I can say it is most definately a palace. In fact it is it's own city with a palace and a museum and lots of administration buildings.

But having been around the catholic church most of my life I can say that no catholics I know consider the pope godly nor do they pray to him. He is he lead spokesperson for the church.

It is not a palace that serves as living and dining quarters for one man or a family. It probably looks like a palace in the sense that it is grand, but it houses treasures, and also has to be large to accomodate those who worship the One, True God there day in and day out.

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted



Having been to the vatican I can say it is most definately a palace. In fact it is it's own city with a palace and a museum and lots of administration buildings.

But having been around the catholic church most of my life I can say that no catholics I know consider the pope godly nor do they pray to him. He is he lead spokesperson for the church.

It is not a palace that serves as living and dining quarters for one man or a family. It probably looks like a palace in the sense that it is grand, but it houses treasures, and also has to be large to accomodate those who worship the One, True God there day in and day out.

I think we are splitting hairs. The Vatican houses a family, just a religious one. And that the popes bedroom is a small condo like suite doesn't change the fact that the vatican is a huge palace like complex, complete with an enormous church for the faithful to use. But again, when I was there I never saw anyone praying to the pope or any bishop, nor have I seen that at catholic churches. In fact many times the Catholics I know have disagreed with decisions made by the pope and they choose to ignore some of his edicts. That does not point to then considering him god like.

Why Tradition without accurate scriptural reference is a problem. The Pope is supposed to be from the spiritual lineage from Peter.

iEZlS_1VC4I

The next day Peter started out with them, and some of the believers from Joppa went along. The following day he arrived in Caesarea. Cornelius was expecting them and had called together his relatives and close friends. As Peter entered the house, Cornelius met him and fell at his feet in reverence. But Peter made him get up. “Stand up,” he said, “I am only a man myself.” – Acts 10:23-26

Not one person here has yet to explain how ‘Tradition’ transpired from the Peter you just read in Acts to the Pope today. What justifies kneeling before any man and kissing his ring?

Why Tradition without accurate scriptural reference is a problem. The Pope is supposed to be from the spiritual lineage from Peter.

iEZlS_1VC4I



Not one person here has yet to explain how ‘Tradition’ transpired from the Peter you just read in Acts to the Pope today. What justifies kneeling before any man and kissing his ring?

Would you, or would you not, admit to bowing your head on a Bible? Would you, or would you not, admit to kissing the Bible? Would you condemn this act of reverence toward the word of God?
Would you, or would you not, mistake this gesture of reverence toward the Bible as "worshipping"?

Would you, or would you not, admit to bowing your head on a Bible? Would you, or would you not, admit to kissing the Bible? Would you condemn this act of reverence toward the word of God?
Would you, or would you not, mistake this gesture of reverence toward the Bible as "worshipping"?

I can’t admit to something I’ve not done. Before I read the bible I do bow my head in prayer that God grant me wisdom and understanding. This is NOT bowing my head in reverence to a book; although I do hold a deep reverence for the meanings and words contained in that bible. I get your analogy that when you look at the pope you see Peter or perhaps Jesus, but just as I have pointed out in Acts… Peter rejected such reverence. The Pope should not only respect this, he should demand it. He should be kneeling to others, washing their feet as Jesus did. He should live in very humble circumstances as Jesus and Peter did. Everything I see practiced here is in direct conflict with the bible.

Because you do not believe the bible is the authoritative voice for these things you will need see this truth.

I can’t admit to something I’ve not done. Before I read the bible I do bow my head in prayer that God grant me wisdom and understanding. This is NOT bowing my head in reverence to a book; although I do hold a deep reverence for the meanings and words contained in that bible. I get your analogy that when you look at the pope you see Peter or perhaps Jesus, but just as I have pointed out in Acts… Peter rejected such reverence. The Pope should not only respect this, he should demand it. He should be kneeling to others, washing their feet as Jesus did. He should live in very humble circumstances as Jesus and Peter did. Everything I see practiced here is in direct conflict with the bible.

Because you do not believe the bible is the authoritative voice for these things you will need see this truth.

I don't see this truth? No. You are assigning fault for things just to keep your walls up. When was the last time you washed someone's feet? I'd venture to say never. (and if you're a nurse or doctor, when was the last time you did it without pay).
Perhaps there are other ways the pope (and Psy) do their part for the good of others? Is that possible?
Could it be that, as a result of the world recognition of Vatican City, that the pope is able to have influence all over the world that no Bible Christian can claim?
Read on:
Despite having no armies under his command and no weapons to deploy, Pope John Paul II played a pivotal role in one of the 20th century's greatest geopolitical dramas - the struggle against the Soviet Union's forceful dominance in Asia and Eastern Europe.
Through public statements, private negotiations and repeated trips to his native Poland, John Paul helped undermine communist rule in his home country in 1989. That event reverberated throughout other Soviet bloc countries such as Hungary, East Germany and Romania, sparking a chain reaction of revolutions and coups, most of them nonviolent. Today, that region is largely free and democratic.

Years later, former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev reflected on the changes that occurred behind the Iron Curtain. "It would have been impossible without the pope," he said.

CBC News Indepth: POPE JOHN PAUL II (http://www.cbc.ca/news/obit/pope/communism_homeland.html)

You claim to know the living circumstances of the pope? Or are you just assuming based on the surroundings?
He prays (a lot!) He studies the Scriptures and he writes encyclicals to the faithful (just like his predecessors in the Bible).
He prays some more. He meets with pilgrims and dignitaries, the rich and the poor. I venture to say that he spends way more time steeped in God than either you or I.

When are you going to address the previous points? What do you suggest the Church do with the treasures of antiquity? Is there any legitimacy to having offices to keep track of the births, deaths, marriages, etc? What about offices that should be keeping track of the monies?
What about missions throughout the world? Do you expect that there would be offices to make sure that relief is sent to Haiti, for example?
You're not thinking about what you're saying; you're just having a knee jerk reaction to what you perceive.

I don't see this truth? No. You are assigning fault for things just to keep your walls up. When was the last time you washed someone's feet? I'd venture to say never. (and if you're a nurse or doctor, when was the last time you did it without pay).
Perhaps there are other ways the pope (and Psy) do their part for the good of others? Is that possible?
Could it be that, as a result of the world recognition of Vatican City, that the pope is able to have influence all over the world that no Bible Christian can claim?
Read on:
Despite having no armies under his command and no weapons to deploy, Pope John Paul II played a pivotal role in one of the 20th century's greatest geopolitical dramas - the struggle against the Soviet Union's forceful dominance in Asia and Eastern Europe.
Through public statements, private negotiations and repeated trips to his native Poland, John Paul helped undermine communist rule in his home country in 1989. That event reverberated throughout other Soviet bloc countries such as Hungary, East Germany and Romania, sparking a chain reaction of revolutions and coups, most of them nonviolent. Today, that region is largely free and democratic.

Years later, former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev reflected on the changes that occurred behind the Iron Curtain. "It would have been impossible without the pope," he said.

CBC News Indepth: POPE JOHN PAUL II (http://www.cbc.ca/news/obit/pope/communism_homeland.html)

You claim to know the living circumstances of the pope? Or are you just assuming based on the surroundings?
He prays (a lot!) He studies the Scriptures and he writes encyclicals to the faithful (just like his predecessors in the Bible).
He prays some more. He meets with pilgrims and dignitaries, the rich and the poor. I venture to say that he spends way more time steeped in God than either you or I.

When are you going to address the previous points? What do you suggest the Church do with the treasures of antiquity? Is there any legitimacy to having offices to keep track of the births, deaths, marriages, etc? What about offices that should be keeping track of the monies?
What about missions throughout the world? Do you expect that there would be offices to make sure that relief is sent to Haiti, for example?
You're not thinking about what you're saying; you're just having a knee jerk reaction to what you perceive.

Are you kidding me? You’re comparing me to the pope; the so-called voice of God? The bible says the first will be last and the last first. I am not in a position of authority or leadership in the church. And my example of feet washing was not meant to be literal. It represents service; serving others. Even in… no… ESPECIALLY in a position of Christian leadership we are to humble ourselves just as Jesus did. Jesus washing his disciples’ feet was an expression of that service; that humility. He could have using anything to express this. Just as Paul did in demanding that Cornelius not knee to him.

Look, I am not saying the pope doesn’t do good things. I am trying to point out certain practices within your church that aren’t biblical. Don’t get offended by this, but even criminals can do good things.

All I’m trying to wrap my head around is (the question yet to be answered) how did your pope get from the humble Peter, meagerly dressed, having no real home, never allowing anyone to bow down to him, who was subjected to brutal treatment and eventually crucified, to the pope we see today, living in luxury, dressed in extremely expensive clothes that serve to place him high above everyone, demanding to be bowed down to and have his ring kissed. As I tried to point out, based on Acts 10, Peter would be really disappointed in the guy that claims to be in his direct spiritual lineage.

Anyway, what Traditions led to such a drastic change in the pope (Peter) to the pope today? When you can explain this, perhaps we can discuss other issues in your church.

I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I had heard and seen them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who had been showing them to me. But he said to me, “Don’t do that! I am a fellow servant with you and with your fellow prophets and with all who keep the words of this scroll. Worship God!” - Revelation 22:8-9

Even an angel sent directly from God rebuked John from bowing down to him.

The Vatican has issued its income and expenses for the 2010 fiscal year. In short, the Vatican took in $356,281,000.00 as income and spent $341,972,000.00 - a surplus of 14,309,800.00. (This is the first surplus in 4 years.)
I always get a good laugh when people talk about the 'waste' at the Vatican. Many people make it out to seem that the Pope swims in money like Scrooge McDuck. In honesty, the Vatican operates with very little money, especially considering all that the Vatican does (restoration of priceless art, feeding the hungry, wages for lay employees, education, aid to the poor, etc.) The Vatican operates, arguably, the largest organization in the world, and yet it has a relatively low budget. You might want to check my math, but let's compare:
The University of Georgia has a budget of $1 billion (difference of $658,028,000).
The State of Florida in 2010-11 had a state budget of $70.5 billion (difference of $70,264,652,563).
The City of Atlanta in FY2011 has a total budget of $559,523,746 (difference of $217,551,746).
The Southern Baptist Association has a budget of about $600,000,000 (difference of $243,719,000)
Swimming in money? No, I think not.

Are you kidding me? You’re comparing me to the pope; the so-called voice of God? The bible says the first will be last and the last first. I am not in a position of authority or leadership in the church. And my example of feet washing was not meant to be literal. It represents service; serving others. Even in… no… ESPECIALLY in a position of Christian leadership we are to humble ourselves just as Jesus did. Jesus washing his disciples’ feet was an expression of that service; that humility. He could have using anything to express this. Just as Paul did in demanding that Cornelius not knee to him.

Look, I am not saying the pope doesn’t do good things. I am trying to point out certain practices within your church that aren’t biblical. Don’t get offended by this, but even criminals can do good things.

All I’m trying to wrap my head around is (the question yet to be answered) how did your pope get from the humble Peter, meagerly dressed, having no real home, never allowing anyone to bow down to him, who was subjected to brutal treatment and eventually crucified, to the pope we see today, living in luxury, dressed in extremely expensive clothes that serve to place him high above everyone, demanding to be bowed down to and have his ring kissed. As I tried to point out, based on Acts 10, Peter would be really disappointed in the guy that claims to be in his direct spiritual lineage.

Anyway, what Traditions led to such a drastic change in the pope (Peter) to the pope today? When you can explain this, perhaps we can discuss other issues in your church.



Even an angel sent directly from God rebuked John from bowing down to him.

As the Christian Church (which WAS, in it's entirety, the Catholic Church in the beginning) grew, so did it's influence. Lots of Kings and Queens were Catholic: Isabelle, Elizabeth, Henry VIII, it goes on and on. For many, their faith played an important role in their decision making. Sure there were errors and abuses along the way, but that was the exception, not the rule. It only makes sense that a central church and/or office was set up, especially (I would think) with the constant rising and falling of kingdoms and gov'ts. The Church would want to make sure that heretics were not able to claim affiliation with the True Church, so the chain of command grew so errors were not spread and, doctrinally, the faithful knew they could rely on certain truths. (no, I am not taking this from a history text or source. I'm thinking this through and it makes total sense.)
What is so bad about using ornaments of all sorts to try to teach? Almost everyone was illiterate so symbols, colors, etc. were used to help the masses contemplate the life of Christ, His Mission and the mission of the Church. The answers to your challenges are all so simple when you look at it through the eyes of history, but you expect it to look like your era would have it look.
If you were a poor serf, or some other such commoner struggling for day to day survival, with all of your surroundings being filthy and broken and just plain hard. You get told that you will have rest in Heaven. The glory of the churches, just maybe, gave them an idea of the Paradise that awaited them at the end of this earthly pilgrimage.
Did Pope Julius use Vatican funds to pay for the Sistine Chapel? Yep. But one could argue that he provided Michaelangelo a job, AND how much a return on that investment has that commissioning yielded? How many sick were treated because the church has the funds generated from this artwork? Has that image of God giving life to Adam been circulated worldwide and given glory to God? I would say so.
There are ways to glorify God other than abject poverty. Remember, Jesus rebuked Judas for claiming the expensive oil was wasted on washing Jesus' feet.

And as far as comparing you to the pope. I'm comparing you because you claim to be a Christian, and based on what you're saying, why should you demand of him what you don't demand of yourself?
So you think the pope has not spent his ENTIRE LIFE in service to others, through the church in which he was ordained? So for a few years he has been the head of the church, and he's a old man, for Pete's sake! The Apostles wrote letters, the pope writes letters. Jesus ate and drank with those who were not believers. The pope eats and drinks with non-believers. Jesus commissioned others to carry on His Mission. The pope has done Jesus' work throughout his life, and now he makes sure it will continue after his passing.
And now that I think about it, maybe the glorious robes (as you insist of considering them) bring attention to the Resurrection and the Glory of it, as opposed to the Suffering.

Who decided what was inspired, IS?
I just told ya...Now who's guilty of :whoosh:

So, they were carried along by the Holy Spirit only at that point, but not before or any time thereafter...
For the most part. Just look at some of their doctrines...

EXACTLY! The ludicrousness of Sola Scriptura has been sufficiently and adequately presented here and there's no sense continually talking past each other. I rest my case. Case dismissed! Squawk on brother, squawk on.
Show up some Friday night or Sunday afternoon so we can do this face to face. :love:

I just told ya...Now who's guilty of :whoosh:

For the most part. Just look at some of their doctrines...

Show up some Friday night or Sunday afternoon so we can do this face to face. :love:

So then, you subscribe to the Mormon position of a great and total apostacy, huh? So then a "restoration" was necessary as Joseph Smith said it was. Well then...
:killingme

So then, you subscribe to the Mormon position of a great and total apostacy, huh? So then a "restoration" was necessary as Joseph Smith said it was. Well then...
:killingme

In addition, that would mean Jesus lied when He said, "And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it." (Mt 16:18) If the Catholic and Orthodox churches are the only ones who can trace their history back to Jesus Himself, and according to IS such churches were in error to begin with and never had the Holy Spirit (well, aside from that time when they decided the canon of the NT anyway), then surely IS is calling Jesus a liar. There just are no words for that, especially for one who claims Sola Scriptura. Wow. :shocked:

So then, you subscribe to the Mormon position of a great and total apostacy, huh? So then a "restoration" was necessary as Joseph Smith said it was. Well then...:killingme
Actually it's God's position. Joseph Smith copied it from the KJV in 1823 so it's coming...:evil:
In addition, that would mean Jesus lied when He said, "And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it." (Mt 16:18) If the Catholic and Orthodox churches are the only ones who can trace their history back to Jesus Himself, and according to IS such churches were in error to begin with and never had the Holy Spirit (well, aside from that time when they decided the canon of the NT anyway), then surely IS is calling Jesus a liar. There just are no words for that, especially for one who claims Sola Scriptura. Wow. :shocked:
:shrug: It never ceases to amaze me how you run with those whacky notions of yours. Do you work for the main stream media? :howdy:

So then, you subscribe to the Mormon position of a great and total apostacy, huh? So then a "restoration" was necessary as Joseph Smith said it was. Well then...
:killingme

Apostasy began as early as the first-century church when others began to follow extra-Biblical teachings that were not preached by the Apostles. Here is Paul's warning during that time (should be in your Bible too) :



Galatians, Chapter 1, verses:

6: I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:

7: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

8: But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

9: As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

10: For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

11: But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.

12: For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

13: For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:

14: And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.

15: But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,

16: To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:

17: Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.

18: Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.

19: But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

20: Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not.



also;


O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? (Galatians 3:1-3)

As the Christian Church (which WAS, in it's entirety, the Catholic Church in the beginning) grew, so did it's influence. Lots of Kings and Queens were Catholic: Isabelle, Elizabeth, Henry VIII, it goes on and on. For many, their faith played an important role in their decision making. Sure there were errors and abuses along the way, but that was the exception, not the rule. It only makes sense that a central church and/or office was set up, especially (I would think) with the constant rising and falling of kingdoms and gov'ts. The Church would want to make sure that heretics were not able to claim affiliation with the True Church, so the chain of command grew so errors were not spread and, doctrinally, the faithful knew they could rely on certain truths. (no, I am not taking this from a history text or source. I'm thinking this through and it makes total sense.)
What is so bad about using ornaments of all sorts to try to teach? Almost everyone was illiterate so symbols, colors, etc. were used to help the masses contemplate the life of Christ, His Mission and the mission of the Church. The answers to your challenges are all so simple when you look at it through the eyes of history, but you expect it to look like your era would have it look.

And I would contend that what makes sense for governments, royalty, and mass numbers of people doesn’t make sense to God. The crusades were some of the most evil and brutal times of the CC. Catholics went on rampages of butchering millions of people without pity or remorse. Through the crusades, the CC plundered nearly all of the wealth they keep safely locked away at the Vatican.

That being said, I’m not questioning the use of ornaments and such. That’s for a different discussion I suppose. I don’t want to get into the belief that the CC is THE original Christian church and by that, it is the only valid church. I’m trying to point out how practices, when they run contrary to the bible should be considered false. Scripture is our standard. It was the standard that Jesus relied on time and time again. It was standard in which nearly every move Jesus made was predicted in scripture:

When Jesus heard that John had been put in prison, he withdrew to Galilee. Leaving Nazareth, he went and lived in Capernaum, which was by the lake in the area of Zebulun and Naphtali— to fulfill what was said through the prophet Isaiah… - Matthew 4:12-14

The beginning of the good news about Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God, as it is written in Isaiah the prophet… Mark 1:1-2

When Jesus was being tempted by the devil in the wilderness:

Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone – Luke 4:4

Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God and serve him only – Luke 4:8

Then when Jesus was done in the desert, His first act in his ministry:

He stood up to read, and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written – Luke 4:16-17

It’s not by some word-of-mouth that we know these things about Jesus. It’s by the written word that we know who Jesus is and what He did during His ministry. There is no Tradition that reveals anything about Jesus that isn’t provided in scripture. If there is, it can be contended as false because it doesn’t have documented evidence. Word-of-mouth, without having a constant frame of reference for the central facts, will get changed, distorted, and manipulated for evil purposes. The written word – even if it is interpreted differently – is still the written word and there is a central truth that doesn’t change regardless of different interpretations. If there are differences in interpretation, the REAL truth will be revealed one day.

And as far as comparing you to the pope. I'm comparing you because you claim to be a Christian, and based on what you're saying, why should you demand of him what you don't demand of yourself?
So you think the pope has not spent his ENTIRE LIFE in service to others, through the church in which he was ordained? So for a few years he has been the head of the church, and he's a old man, for Pete's sake! The Apostles wrote letters, the pope writes letters. Jesus ate and drank with those who were not believers. The pope eats and drinks with non-believers. Jesus commissioned others to carry on His Mission. The pope has done Jesus' work throughout his life, and now he makes sure it will continue after his passing.
And now that I think about it, maybe the glorious robes (as you insist of considering them) bring attention to the Resurrection and the Glory of it, as opposed to the Suffering.

I’m trying to figure out how you know so much about me. How do you know what I do, what I wear, how I live?

Please try to get this straight… This is NOT about the Pope – the man. This is about the Pope the position. The CC has placed the pope in a position of God. He is bowed to, his ring is kissed, and he lives in very lavish accommodations. This is NOT the example of Jesus or Peter – the pope’s so-called direct lineage. I am absolutely certain that pope Benedict lived his life in a very loving and giving way.

I gave you an example of where Peter (the so-called first pope) rebuked Cornelius from bowing to him citing that he (Peter) is only a man. The Pope – the Catholic Church – should demand the same. Unless, of course, you give no credibility to the bible.