ugh...
there are so many assumptions and generalizations here
I wonder what, exactly is bothering you?
If there are assumptions and generalizations, then by all means point them out. I don't want to make a point about a Protestant belief that may be incorrect.
Grossly blatant hypocrisy from Protestants who want to throw around the "that's not biblical" [according to their interpretation] crap time and time again bothers me.
Roman Catholics and Protestants can quote scripture until they are blue in the face, but they will never come to an agreement on some of these hot button issues. After while it just becomes a waste of time.
Yep. All arguments, all of them, boil down to -- Who has authority to interpret scripture? If everyone has that authority, then no one can rightly say anyone else's interpretations are incorrect and any attempt to do so is
pure hubris. I'm likely just going to refer to this this thread a great deal in the future, as it knocks the feet out from under any accusations that may be made.
Thus saith the rcc, the church fathers, and the good old sacred church traditions, or church sacred traditions, or is it traditions, sacred, church, one each, to all Catholics?
I was posting about what PROTESTANTS think and the illogic of accusing the Catholics of not being biblical. So, I'm not even sure what your point is here except to be a dillhole?
But Monello, is right, along with stgislander, and I've said it in many of these threads. We will eternally agree to disagree.
Actually, there are things we can agree on, but nobody seems to want to focus on that.
The conundrum lies in the Catholic mind, and not in the saved Christian.
It's your doctrine so your problem, not mine. You haven't addressed the issue at hand, nor do I suspect you can...
I'll check out of this thread, at least until it morphs into something else altogether.
...which is why you're bowing out.
Dang. You "christians" are a vicious lot. Makes me relieved I'm a Druid.
I know right? I mean, aside from that human sacrifice part, the Druids might top us on viciousness with that one.
That would be unusual considering it probably can't be proven since Titus burned the Temple which contained all of the genealogical records of the Jews.
Wow, someone missed the boat entirely.
We don't need the genealogical records of the Jews but rather a history of the Apostles and their successors, which we have.
Deuteronomy 5:32 Ye shall observe to do therefore as the LORD your God hath commanded you: ye shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the left.
Proverbs 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
John 6:68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
John 15:5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.
Matthew 7:26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
Matthew 7:27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.
1 Corinthians 3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
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.
2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
Aside from Timothy, all of these say to trust in the Lord, not a book. Not one of those passages mentions the bible alone or scripture alone. You can't find one that does.
So, you believe in relying on scripture alone, in which scripture does not say to rely on it alone, which means you're really following a non-biblical doctrine all the while pointing fingers at Catholics for having what you perceive to be non-biblical doctrines. Oh ironies of ironies!
***With perhaps the exception of Inkah, not one of you,
NOT ONE, addressed the issue as stated in the OP but rather chose to go off on other tangents.***
