Was Jesus Born With a Bible?
- Thread starter onel0126
- Start date
C
Chuckt
Guest
Matthew 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
C
Chuckt
Guest
"Representing the conservative camp of Roman Catholicism, most Roman Catholic apologists today believe in the full inspiration and full inerrancy of the Scriptures. However, most Catholic scholars today (representing the moderate camp of Roman Catholicism) believe that the Scriptures are inspired only when speaking of matters of salvation. Both camps derive their views from the very same Vatican II document, Dei Verbum."-p.23, "Fair Comparisons?", from "Upon This Slippery Rock" (Countering Roman Catholic Claims to Authority by Eric D. Svendsen (c) 2002.
This book explores the claim about there being 20,000 protestant denominations when there is divisions and denominations in Catholicism itself.
1 Corinthians 11:18 For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
1 Corinthians 11:19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
Deuteronomy 8:3: "So He humbled you, allowed you to hunger, and fed you with manna which you did not know nor did your fathers know, that He might make you know that man shall not live by bread alone; but man lives by every word that proceeds from the mouth of the LORD."
Radiant1
Soul Probe
What does conservative or progressive Catholics have to do with the topic at hand? By the way, does your author give names of the supposed Catholic scholars in the "moderate camp"? I'd like to verify his assertion.
Do you actually have an answer to the condundrum presented to you in the OP article, or do you think an offense is the best defense as you refuse to face facts and hide your head in the sand?
And Sola Scriptura has repeatedly been proven to be one of them.
C
Chuckt
Guest
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/octoberweb-only/143-11.0.html
If you once taught it then your members believed it which is different today because the Catholic church's truth has changed which means another denomination.
I'm not hiding my head in the sand. Apologetics takes time and work and doesn't operate on the fly like message boards or chat rooms.
The council at Trent really killed the rcc individual and their right or ability to read and discern, compare, what the rcc says to what scriptures read. Only the rcc can tell them what to think, whether the church is right, wrong, in error, whatever. The good catholics are not allowed to tounderstand themselves in the light of the Word, but only in light of what the rcc tells them.
" . . . no one, relying on his own skill, shall,--in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine,--wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,--whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,--hath held and doth hold," (Trent, Session 4, "Decree Concerning the Edition, and the Use, of the Sacred Books").
No one in the rcc can think for themselves - only what their holy mama church tells them to. Trent is a great tool to keep Catholics from reading the scriptures alone and seeiong what it teaches - Luther scared them into that.
Merry Christmas season!
" . . . no one, relying on his own skill, shall,--in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine,--wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,--whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,--hath held and doth hold," (Trent, Session 4, "Decree Concerning the Edition, and the Use, of the Sacred Books").
No one in the rcc can think for themselves - only what their holy mama church tells them to. Trent is a great tool to keep Catholics from reading the scriptures alone and seeiong what it teaches - Luther scared them into that.
Merry Christmas season!
Radiant1
Soul Probe
It hasn't and you're grasping. I'd be more than happy to tell you why in another thread after you provide the sources I asked for. This thread is about the illogic of Sola Scriptura. I've been waiting decades for a reasonable explanation so by all means take your time, it *might* be something I haven't heard yet.
So it is illogical for you to think for yourself? Was it illogical for Paul to tell the Romans, and us, to read and compare the scriptures to what any church is teaching? Romans 14:5 throws your "any church knows best" right out the window.
"One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind."
To put the passage in context:
Different translation: …4Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. 5One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. 6He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God.…
If you don't think and decide on your own, you are just a robot.
Radiant1
Soul Probe
Once again, the best defense is an offense?
The Church teaches Truth as revealed by God as appointed by Jesus Christ. It doesn't tell you how or what to think. If you stop believing what the Church teaches, then you cease to be Catholic. It's as simple as that. The Church doesn't hold you there or go chasing after you. You continually claim, "the RCC tells them what to think" and it's just not true. I think perhaps you choose to cling to your ignorance in this regard because it suits you when your own doctrine is under a microscope. At any rate, I addressed this with you (I think it was you, maybe it was chuck) in another thread not that long ago anyway. I was raised Protestant and thought for myself, which is why I'm now a Catholic and still think for myself (go figure). Funny how that can work, eh? In fact, it's because I can think for myself that I completely reject the doctrine of Sola Scriptura on purely rational grounds. How ironic is that?
Why do you hold to a doctrine that Jesus and the apostles never taught and is simply not rational? I'm sure you can think for yourself as you attempt to truly answer the question instead of dodging it.
Once again, the best defense is an offense?
The Church teaches Truth as revealed by God as appointed by Jesus Christ. It doesn't tell you how or what to think. If you stop believing what the Church teaches, then you cease to be Catholic. It's as simple as that. The Church doesn't hold you there or go chasing after you. You continually claim, "the RCC tells them what to think" and it's just not true. I think perhaps you choose to cling to your ignorance in this regard because it suits you when your own doctrine is under a microscope. At any rate, I addressed this with you (I think it was you, maybe it was chuck) in another thread not that long ago anyway. I was raised Protestant and thought for myself, which is why I'm now a Catholic and still think for myself (go figure). Funny how that can work, eh? In fact, it's because I can think for myself that I completely reject the doctrine of Sola Scriptura on purely rational grounds. How ironic is that?
Why do you hold to a doctrine that Jesus and the apostles never taught and is simply not rational? I'm sure you can think for yourself as you attempt to truly answer the question instead of dodging it.
What is the doctrine I hold that Jesus and the Apostles never taught? You are right - if you are catholic and do not walk the catholic line, you will no longer be part of it. You will not be welcome, so might as well leave. Just like people that claim to be Christians that do not subscribe to Christian doctrine. They can claim what they want, but are no more a Christian than mohammed.
Now what is it about every word that comes from the mouth of God as the sole source that is not true, and that Jesus did not teach, preach, or demonstrate? The part about the Bible not saying that the Trinity is three persons in one God, but it is held as a Christian truth? The Bible states that all scripture is inspired and to be used for correction and teaching, but nothing about using traditions, like the rcc is full of, for any kind of teaching. Tradition is good, as long as it does not nullify or negate the Gospel, which is where your church is.
Jesus, and the disciples used the method of appealing to the scriptures as the final rule of authority.
Since the Bible does not validate or approve of the rcc's Sacred Tradition, along with its inventions of prayer to Mary, prayer to the saints, indulgences, penance, purgatory, etc., then why should anybody believe that your traditions are equal to the Word of God?
Sola Scriptura, baby. You keep on keepin' on by placing man and your traditions at the level of God.
Last edited:
TheLibertonian
New Member
What is the doctrine I hold that Jesus and the Apostles never taught? You are right - if you are catholic and do not walk the catholic line, you will no longer be part of it. You will not be welcome, so might as well leave. Just like people that claim to be Christians that do not subscribe to Christian doctrine. They can claim what they want, but are no more a Christian than mohammed.
Now what is it about every word that comes from the mouth of God as the sole source that is not true, and that Jesus did not teach, preach, or demonstrate? The part about the Bible not saying that the Trinity is three persons in one God, but it is held as a Christian truth? The Bible states that all scripture is inspired and to be used for correction and teaching, but nothing about using traditions, like the rcc is full of, for any kind of teaching. Tradition is good, as long as it does not nullify or negate the Gospel, which is where your church is.
Jesus, and the disciples used the method of appealing to the scriptures as the final rule of authority.
Since the Bible does not validate or approve of the rcc's Sacred Tradition, along with its inventions of prayer to Mary, prayer to the saints, indulgences, penance, purgatory, etc., then why should anybody believe that your traditions are equal to the Word of God?
Sola Scriptura, baby. You keep on keepin' on by placing man and your traditions at the level of God.
The bible your reading was decided on by catholics. The only difference is the removal of the apocrypha, from the old testemant, meaning that the new testemant was approved by a group of catholic priest a decently long time ago.
There are actually other biblical text outside the bible that simply didn't 'make hte cut' as it were. So that "word of god" you keep going on about was edited by man. It's not the word of God, not in the sense you seem to want to constantly say it is, seeing as it was the catholic church who decided which books would go into the bible, therefore which words would be in the bible.
C
Chuckt
Guest
Matthew 23:35 (NET)
23:35 so that on you will come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. ©NET
Jesus pretty much describes the Old Testament Canon in those verses excluding the Apocrypha.
https://bible.org/seriespage/7-bible-holy-canon-scripture
C
Chuckt
Guest
http://old.josh.org/resources/study-research/answers-to-skeptics-questions/what-is-the-apocrypha/
The message board censored the name of a text because it resembled another word.
TheLibertonian
New Member
True, but somewhat missing the point. The point is that it is claimed that the Bible is the UNADULTERED and UNEDITED word of God. This is provably false. The bible the poster is describing was chosen first by the catholic church to contain the books it does, and then later on the apocrypha was removed, and finally there are books that are biblical but not part of the canon.
Ironically, the Lutherans, as in the direct protestant remnants of Martin Luther, who set the whole powderkeg off, still use the Apocrypha.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Christian_biblical_canon
Here's a nice little list. And it acknowledges the Eastern Orthodox Church exist, which is nice. How often we forget them.
Ironically, the Lutherans, as in the direct protestant remnants of Martin Luther, who set the whole powderkeg off, still use the Apocrypha.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Christian_biblical_canon
Here's a nice little list. And it acknowledges the Eastern Orthodox Church exist, which is nice. How often we forget them.
Last edited:
Radiant1
Soul Probe
Sola Scriptura, duh.
You mean those who don't subscribe to Sola Scriptura are not Christians? :ahem:
Even scripture attests to the fact that not all was written down. So if you're relying on scripture alone, then you're missing a thing or two that came from the mouth of God. Jesus Himself is that sole source, b23, not Tradition alone and not scripture alone. Jesus didn't leave us with a book, He left us with the Holy Spirit and a teaching church and that church later gave us a book, but no where did Jesus or that church say the book was the sole authority on God's Word. And how can it be anyway when so many Protestants interpret it different ways? That alone tell us that there must be an authority outside of the book. Your doctrine does nothing but confuse and divide, and you and I both know that confusion and division is not the work of God.
Jesus is Son of God and I'm kind of doubting He needed scripture as an authority above and beyond Himself. At any rate, Jesus quoted from the Septuagint, why don't you? Enoch was mentioned by both Jesus in the gospels and Jude, do you consider Enoch scripture? If so, then why isn't it in your bible, and if not, then why not if appealing to writings is a determining factor of authority?
The bible doesn't have to but having said that I guess I'll have to bump old threads that prove you wrong. The Catholics Church is validated by BOTH Tradition AND the Bible, not either or. Tradition existed before the bible and it was that Tradition that gave you the bible. Now let me turn this question on you. Scripture does not validate scripture alone, so where does that leave you and your invented sola scriptura doctrine? It's a false doctrine, b23. Jesus didn't teach it, the church He left us with doesn't teach it, and scripture itself doesn't even teach it.
Sola Scriptura, baby. You keep on keepin' on by placing man and your traditions at the level of God.
Considering the fact that the Bible was written by men and compiled by men, then Sola Scriptura does just that, baby!
I didn't see anyone appeal to the Church Fathers, but even so chuck, who do you think decided what would or would not be in the bible? Do you think God carved the OT and NT in stone somewhere as He did the 10 commandments? And how did the conversation turn to your Apocrypha? You are, once again, refusing to acknowledge and address the matter at hand which is Sola Scriptura and why it is or is not a false doctrine.
You know what the sad things here is? This discussion has been had with both of you numerous times already with all points covered, but yet neither of you can still respond to reason and logic but rather cling to your ignorance. I can only assume that you both do so because you dislike the Catholic Church so much, and hey, that's ok you don't have to like it, and no one is asking you to become a Catholic; however, it would behoove you to remove yourself from the false doctrine of Sola Scriptura regardless of where it may lead you.
Sola Scriptura, duh.
You mean those who don't subscribe to Sola Scriptura are not Christians? :ahem:
Even scripture attests to the fact that not all was written down. So if you're relying on scripture alone, then you're missing a thing or two that came from the mouth of God. Jesus Himself is that sole source, b23, not Tradition alone and not scripture alone. Jesus didn't leave us with a book, He left us with the Holy Spirit and a teaching church and that church later gave us a book, but no where did Jesus or that church say the book was the sole authority on God's Word. And how can it be anyway when so many Protestants interpret it different ways? That alone tell us that there must be an authority outside of the book. Your doctrine does nothing but confuse and divide, and you and I both know that confusion and division is not the work of God.
Jesus is Son of God and I'm kind of doubting He needed scripture as an authority above and beyond Himself. At any rate, Jesus quoted from the Septuagint, why don't you? Enoch was mentioned by both Jesus in the gospels and Jude, do you consider Enoch scripture? If so, then why isn't it in your bible, and if not, then why not if appealing to writings is a determining factor of authority?
The bible doesn't have to but having said that I guess I'll have to bump old threads that prove you wrong. The Catholics Church is validated by BOTH Tradition AND the Bible, not either or. Tradition existed before the bible and it was that Tradition that gave you the bible. Now let me turn this question on you. Scripture does not validate scripture alone, so where does that leave you and your invented sola scriptura doctrine? It's a false doctrine, b23. Jesus didn't teach it, the church He left us with doesn't teach it, and scripture itself doesn't even teach it.
Considering the fact that the Bible was written by men and compiled by men, then Sola Scriptura does just that, baby!
I didn't see anyone appeal to the Church Fathers, but even so chuck, who do you think decided what would or would not be in the bible? Do you think God carved the OT and NT in stone somewhere as He did the 10 commandments? And how did the conversation turn to your Apocrypha? You are, once again, refusing to acknowledge and address the matter at hand which is Sola Scriptura and why it is or is not a false doctrine.
You know what the sad things here is? This discussion has been had with both of you numerous times already with all points covered, but yet neither of you can still respond to reason and logic but rather cling to your ignorance. I can only assume that you both do so because you dislike the Catholic Church so much, and hey, that's ok you don't have to like it, and no one is asking you to become a Catholic; however, it would behoove you to remove yourself from the false doctrine of Sola Scriptura regardless of where it may lead you.
Not hardly, Radi1. Don't forget the "inspired - God breathed" part that directed the the writing of those authors.
Radiant1
Soul Probe
Not hardly what? I haven't forgotten. I have no issue with the inspired Word of God as found in Scripture...or Tradition for that matter. You're the one who wants to promote one at the expense of the other and throw the baby out with the bath water. :shrug:
ProximaCentauri
Member
"Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth. Let us reflect that it is inhabited by a thousand millions of people. That these profess probably a thousand different systems of religion. That ours is but one of that thousand. That if there be but one right, and ours that one, we should wish to see the 999 wandering sects gathered into the fold of truth. But against such a majority we cannot effect this by force. Reason and persuasion are the only practicable instruments. To make way for these, free enquiry must be indulged; and how can we wish others to indulge it while we refuse it ourselves?”
― Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia
― Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia