Sola Scriptura vs Church, Sacred Tradition and Scripture [Archive]

Tj3

Jan 14, 2008, 07:21 PM

I didn't ask for agreement. Just explanation. I showed the Catholic doctrine and where it is confirmed in Scripture.

What is the definition of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura and where is it confirmed in Scripture?

Sincerely,

De Maria

Actually, what you gave was a denominational position which is contrary to what scripture says.

Matt 16:13-19
13 When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, "Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?" 14 So they said, "Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." 15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" 16 Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." 17 Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
NKJV

What do we see here?

- Jesus was speaking to his disciples as a group
- The topic was "who is Jesus"
- Peter answered that he is the Messiah, son of the living God.
- Jesus does not immediately refer to Peter, but rather the fact that the revelation of the truth came from God the father.

The word Peter here is Petros, which means stone or a piece of a rock, and then Jesus refers to the "rock" which is the revelation of who he is, and states that His church shall be built upon this revelation that He is the Christ, the Son of the Living God. The word "rock" here is Petra, which means rock, or a mass of rock. We do not build a building upon a piece of a rock or a stone, but rather upon a rock that is massive enough to provide a solid foundation. Jesus' choice of words made it clear which should be the foundation of His church. This is confirmed in Paul's letter to the church at Corinth:

1 Cor 3:11
11 For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
NKJV

Fr_Chuck

Jan 14, 2008, 07:56 PM

Matt 16:13-19
18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.

The greek word in 18 was Peters name Petrus, which just means Rock, just as in the others names, including jesus name all has a meaning, there is no reason to beelive it was not merely his name being used, in fact since it is the same name used in other verses it would not be reasonable to believe in this one verse Peters name was meaning something other than his name.

The term for rock is petra, and that is the word used for rock in the verse.
And even if the term petros was used, it was used The term petra means a larger rock or mass of rock something large, it is compared to the term
( or comes from the term) lithos, which is merely a stone

So he was speaking to Peter ( whose name means rock) that upon this large mass of rock, he would build his church.

The term for Peter was always shown as a literal meaning, while the term petra has been used figurtively as well as literal. In the Greek it is often the usage of the word that helps determine its meaning.

Also understand that in the early greek not all pronouns and grammar was used as we use it today, so there are "added words" to make it work in english. So instead of actually saying And I say also into thee
It really reads in greek more And also ( which is many readers idea of a break) but there are also other word ideas that can be used insteadof the word also, the greek word used is lega, which can have several meanings
, used for a individual expressoin, perhaps after talking to a group, he would turn and talk to Peter more in private. It can also be used to mean where as or even a added random though. Each of those meanings can well change the idea of what the meaning can or could be.

But in all of them it would appear that it is very obvoius that Peter is being talked to and that he would be a large part of the start of the church.

I do have to laugh, in one side so many Protestants want solo scripture, where it is obvoius and plain what the bible says and is all that is needed.
But when the bible is very clear on what it is saying, then it is not really what it is saying but a more figure meaning

Tj3

Jan 14, 2008, 08:04 PM

Fr_Chuck

Jan 14, 2008, 08:12 PM

Tj3

Jan 14, 2008, 08:18 PM

How about Strongs dictionary and lexical aids to the bible
And perhaps the bible in greek

And there is a difference between a mass of rock ( or a large part of forming it) and the foundation.

NT:4074
Petros (pet'-ros); apparently a primary word; a (piece of) rock (larger than NT:3037); as a name, Petrus, an apostle:

(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright (c) 1994, Biblesoft and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

And what is a piece of a rock??

Fr_Chuck

Jan 14, 2008, 08:23 PM

Yes, as a name, it is Peters name, not referring to anything but calling Peter specifcly by name, Jesus was talking to Peter,

Rock has various sizes, we have grades in today's english, chat, gravel, stone, and they had the words for various size of stone, rock, piece , mass and so on. But the usage lets us know ti was obvous a name.
Since of course it was the same word used throughout Mathew for Peter.

Wangdoodle

Jan 14, 2008, 08:23 PM

Like when Paul says that the foundation is not Peter, but Jesus?

1 Cor 3:11
11 For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
NKJV

Of course Jesus is the ultimate head of the church. That does not mean then, that Jesus did not leave a visible head. That visible head was Peter. Again this is not an ether/or. It is not just ether Jesus is the foundation, or Peter is the foundation. And of course, even if Peter wasn't the visible head of the church, that would not point to a sola scriptura approach to scripture.

Tj3

Jan 14, 2008, 08:25 PM

Of corse Jesus is the ultimate head of the church. That does not mean then, that Jesus did not leave a visible head. That visible head was Peter.

That is a denominational claim which, as shown, is not in concert with scripture, but we see in scripture that Peter was not given that recognition even in practice in scripture. For example, when Paul rebuked Peter on a doctrinal matter.

Tj3

Jan 14, 2008, 08:27 PM

yes, as a name, it is Peters name, not referring to anything but calling Peter specifcly by name, Jesus was talking to Peter,

As I said, maybe obvious to you, but the grammar itself does not even suggest that it is Peter that he was speaking to. And to me that is obvious.

rock has various sizes, we have grades in today's english, chat, gravel, stone, and they had the words for various size of stone, rock, piece , mass and so on. But the usage lets us know ti was obvous a name.
Since of course it was the same word used throughout Mathew for Peter.

Bottom line - Peter was not called a rock, and Strong's agrees.

Fr_Chuck

Jan 14, 2008, 08:29 PM

Actually it is, if you will note that Paul went to see Peter about the issues of spreading the Gospel to the Gentiles to basically "get his permission"

I am not going to look the verse up tonight, time for bed,

I did not think anyone acutally doubted that Peter was the head of the early church, only the fact if he was considered a Pope as the catholic church claim, the claims that he was obviosly the early church leader seems fairly well proven by scripture

Fr_Chuck

Jan 14, 2008, 08:34 PM

As I said, maybe obvious to you, but the grammar itself does not even suggest that it is Peter that he was speaking to. And to me that is obvious.

Bottom line - Peter was not called a rock, and Strong's agrees.

Not called a rock?? Your own quote showed it was used for an apostles name?

It is obvious that you are just not wanting to accept black and white, in black and white from your own posting. The term was used throughout Mathew for Peter, it is just the greek word used, straight out of the greek bible strongs dictionary, greek condordance, and exegetical notes coded directly from strongs greek. If this was just a one time use of the term, one could perhaps wonder, but since it is not a one time use of the word it is then a obvous use by the author.

Tj3

Jan 14, 2008, 08:34 PM

Actually it is, if you will note that Paul went to see Peter about the issues of spreading the Gospel to the Gentiles to basically "get his permission"

I'd be interested in seeing the verse that you are thinking of and to read the context.

I did not think anyone acutally doubted that Peter was the head of the early church, only the fact if he was considered a Pope as the catholic church claim, the claims that he was obviosly the early church leader seems fairly well proven by scripture

Actually, I know few people if any who believe Peter was head of the early church who are not Catholics or Mormons.

Tj3

Jan 14, 2008, 08:36 PM

Not called a rock?? Your own quote showed it was used for an apostles name?

What quote? Are you reading something that I have not seen??

It is obvious that you are just not wanting to accept black and white, in black and white from your own posting. The term was used throughout Mathew for Peter, it is just the greek word used, straight out of the greek bible strongs dictionary, greek condordance, and exegetical notes coded directly from strongs greek. If this was just a one time use of the term, one could perhaps wonder, but since it is not a one time use of the word it is then a obvous use by the author.

I showed you where scripture itself says that it means "stone", but I note that that scripture reference has been ignore by those who believe Peter was the "rock".

Throughout scripture, the Rock is God (Father or Son):

Deut 32:4
4 He is the Rock, His work is perfect;
For all His ways are justice,
A God of truth and without injustice;
Righteous and upright is He.
NKJV

Deut 32:15
Then he forsook God who made him,
And scornfully esteemed the Rock of his salvation.
NKJV

Deut 32:18
18 Of the Rock who begot you, you are unmindful,
And have forgotten the God who fathered you.
NKJV

Deut 32:30-31
30 How could one chase a thousand,
And two put ten thousand to flight,
Unless their Rock had sold them,
And the LORD had surrendered them?
31 For their rock is not like our Rock,
NKJV

2 Sam 22:47
47 "The LORD lives!
Blessed be my Rock!
Let God be exalted,
The Rock of my salvation!
NKJV

2 Sam 23:3
3 The God of Israel said,
The Rock of Israel spoke to me:
NKJV

Ps 18:46
46 The LORD lives!
Blessed be my Rock!
Let the God of my salvation be exalted.
NKJV

Ps 28:1
To You I will cry, O LORD my Rock:
NKJV

Ps 42:9
9 I will say to God my Rock,
"Why have You forgotten me?
NKJV

Ps 95:1
Let us shout joyfully to the Rock of our salvation.
NKJV

Ps 144:1
Blessed be the LORD my Rock,
NKJV

Isa 17:10
10 Because you have forgotten the God of your salvation,
And have not been mindful of the Rock of your stronghold,
NKJV

Isa 44:8
Is there a God besides Me?
Indeed there is no other Rock;I know not one.'"
NKJV

Hab 1:12
O LORD, You have appointed them for judgment;
O Rock, You have marked them for correction.
NKJV

1 Cor 10:4-5
For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ.
NKJV

As for the stone, there is much less, but here is what we do find:
John 1:42
42 And he brought him to Jesus. Now when Jesus looked at him, He said, "You are Simon the son of Jonah. You shall be called Cephas" (which is translated, A Stone).
NKJV

1 Peter 2:4-6
4 Coming to Him as to a living stone, rejected indeed by men, but chosen by God and precious, 5 you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 Therefore it is also contained in the Scripture,
NKJV

So, we are stones, but there are references to Jesus as a stone as well:

Rom 9:33
33 As it is written:
"Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and rock of offense,
And whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame."NKJV
He is both a Rock and a Stone. That is because he is the cornerstone:

Eph 2:19-22
19 Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, 21 in whom the whole building, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, 22 in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.
NKJV

The cornerstone is in fact, a rock. So Jesus can be called a stone (cornerstone), but is more frequently called the Rock and even the reference to Him being a stone refers to a Rock (cornerstone). On the other hand, there is no reference in scripture anywhere of Peter being called a Rock. He is a stone, as we all are stone per 1 Peter 2:4-6. This may also be a reference to the fact that Jesus is both God (Rock) and man (stone), and is the sole person to hold such a distinction.

Jesus, as the Rock, is also the cornerstone, which is the most notable piece of the foundation, but the confession of Peter that Jesus is Christ is the foundation upon which the church will be built. We see this endorsed in scripture as well, later by Paul:

1 Cor 3:11
11 For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
NKJV

So the foundation is Jesus, not Peter. A church built upon Jesus, and the revelation of the fact that he is the Messiah, the Son of the Living God is the church that will stand, not a church built upon a man.

Fr_Chuck

Jan 14, 2008, 08:42 PM

Which rock are they talking to simon "rock" in Math 16:16, same word used in the other passage

Tj3

Jan 14, 2008, 08:46 PM

which rock are they talking to simon "rock" in Math 16:16, same word used in the other passage

??

Matt 16:16
16 Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
NKJV

The word for Simon is:

NT:4613
Simon (see'-mone); of Hebrew origin [OT:8095]; Simon (i.e. Shimon), the name of nine Israelites:

(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright (c) 1994, Biblesoft and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

Who are the stones spoken of here??

John 1:42
42 And he brought him to Jesus. Now when Jesus looked at him, He said, "You are Simon the son of Jonah. You shall be called Cephas" (which is translated, A Stone).
NKJV

1 Peter 2:4-6
4 Coming to Him as to a living stone, rejected indeed by men, but chosen by God and precious, 5 you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 Therefore it is also contained in the Scripture,
NKJV

Fr_Chuck

Jan 14, 2008, 08:49 PM

No the word for Peter, the King James says Simon Peter,

Thus the word Peter, just as used in the other verse, the term in greek for peter is the same, so if you accept that it is Peter in this verse, it is thus peter in the other.

Tj3

Jan 14, 2008, 08:52 PM

No the word for Peter, the King James says Simon Peter,

Thus the word Peter, jsut as used in the other verse, the term in greek for peter is the same, so if you accept that it is Peter in this verse, it is thus peter in the other.

Which was shown to be translated as "a stone", or a "piece of a rock", but not a rock.

I note that you did not answer my questions.

Fr_Chuck

Jan 14, 2008, 08:59 PM

Mattew 4:18, Simon called Peter ( not cephas but Pethos)

This is the name that Mathew uses throughout his writings for peter.

In John there term Kephas ( used as cephas in english) and is a term for "the rock" and used by John. But again not used by Matthew in most of his writings, who used the other word

Do not feel bad this is a common mistake most people make by forgetting the books are separate writtings, in style and grammar.

Not that I expect you to see the truth, when one wants to find error in the teachings of Christian teachings, they will play with words to do so.

Fr_Chuck

Jan 14, 2008, 09:01 PM

Wangdoodle

Jan 14, 2008, 09:01 PM

That is a denominational claim which, as shown, is not in concert with scripture, but we see in scripture that Peter was not given that recognition even in practice in scripture. For example, when Paul rebuked Peter on a doctrinal matter.

You must be referring to Galatians. Paul was correcting Peter about behavior, not doctrine. It is interesting to note also in Acts, that Paul was among those who fell silent at the Council of Jerusalem after Peter spoke and delivered a final decision.

Wangdoodle

Jan 14, 2008, 09:07 PM

The discussion about the primacy of Peter is interesting and all, however I still haven't seen how this answers the question of how Sola Scriptura is supported by scripture alone.

Tj3

Jan 14, 2008, 09:07 PM

You must be referring to Galatians. Paul was correcting Peter about behavior, not doctrine. It is interesting to note also in Acts, that Paul was among those who fell silent at the Council of Jerusalem after Peter spoke and delivered a final decision.

Gal 2:13-21
14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, "If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews? 15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, 16 knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified. 17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is Christ therefore a minister of sin? Certainly not! 18 For if I build again those things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. 19 For I through the law died to the law that I might live to God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me. 21 I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain."
NKJV

Sure sounds like doctrine to me!

The person who delivered the decision was James, who started the final talk with this verse.

Acts 15:13-14
13 And after they had become silent, James answered, saying, "Men and brethren, listen to me:
NKJV

There if the decision maker is the leader, then that would be James.

Tj3

Jan 14, 2008, 09:08 PM

The discussion about the primacy of Peter is interesting and all, however I still haven't seen how this answers the question of how Sola Scriptura is supported by scripture alone.

This started with De Maria from another thread and I addressed the issue in that thread. De Maria also started this discussion over Peter if memory serves me correctly.

Fr_Chuck

Jan 14, 2008, 09:08 PM

Yes, it appers to be some mind block against anything that a denomination teaches, if they teach it, it must be wrong. And we will ignore any bible verse that proves it.

Yes, I can understand churches not accept the issue of Peter being Pope, but truly I can't believe any christian group would not accept the bibical teachings of Peter as leader or the apostles.

I also went to the web site of Tj3 has listed, but still don't know what they believe or what type of church they are.

Tj3

Jan 14, 2008, 09:12 PM

And since you will not accept the greek words and meanings, there is little to answer, you are shown proof and truth and refuse to see it.

Your web site says you are to question, fine but when it is obvious, one has to accept things at some point when it is proven over and over

You keep telling me that it says one thing, when the quote I gave does not say that, nor has anyone shown any evidence that Jesus called Peter a rock. It is an opinion of the catholic denominations, and I acknowledge that, but that is not adequate reason for others to believe it.

What issue do you have with Peter being the leader of the Apostles ?

I would have no issue if it was scriptural, but I find nothing in scripture to support that view - indeed if there was any leader other than Jesus Himself, I suspect that a stronger argument could be made for Paul. But I see nothing in scripture that would suggest that there was any such leader.

Wangdoodle

Jan 14, 2008, 09:14 PM

There if the decision maker is the leader, then that would be James.

Yes, James was the Bishop of Jerusalem. It would be proper for James to give the closing remarks. But again, Peter announced the decision.

Tj3

Jan 14, 2008, 09:16 PM

yes, it appers to be some mind block against anything that a denomination teaches, if they teach it, it must be wrong. And we will ignore any bible verse that proves it.

No, that is not what I said. I do refuse to accept something simply because a denomination teaches it without adequate scriptural support.

Yes, I can understand churches not accept the issue of Peter being Pope, but truly I can't believe any christian group would not accept the bibical teachings of Peter as leader or the apostles.

Then I would suggest that you have not checked out the beliefs of too many other denominations and non-Catholic Christians regarding Peter. I have attended services at many denominations, and have examined the beliefs of many denominations, and off-hand cannot think of any churches outside of Catholic and Mormon that teach that Peter was the leader of the early church.

Tj3

Jan 14, 2008, 09:18 PM

Yes, James was the the Bishop of Jerusalem. It would be proper for James to give the closing remarks. But again, Peter announced the decision.

The speakers each gave their opinions. James announced the decision. Read the passage again. As for the group falling silent, that was to listen to Paul and Barnabas (Not Peter) who spoke before James issued the decision:

Acts 15:12-14
12 Then all the multitude kept silent and listened to Barnabas and Paul declaring how many miracles and wonders God had worked through them among the Gentiles. 13 And after they had become silent, James answered, saying, "Men and brethren, listen to me:
NKJV

Wangdoodle

Jan 14, 2008, 09:37 PM

The speakers each gave their opinions. James announced the decision. Read the passage again. As for the group falling silent, that was to listen to Paul and Barnabas (Not Peter) who spoke before James issued the decision:

Acts 15:12-14
12 Then all the multitude kept silent and listened to Barnabas and Paul declaring how many miracles and wonders God had worked through them among the Gentiles. 13 And after they had become silent, James answered, saying, "Men and brethren, listen to me:
NKJV

I agree that they fell silent to listen to Paul and Barnabas tell about the great signs God has done. Thanks for pointing that out.

However, I still disagree that the decision is James' and not Peter's. James is acting as the Bishop of Jerusalem and gives the final remarks wich refers to what Peter had said prior.

Tj3

Jan 14, 2008, 09:40 PM

I agree that they fell silent to listen to Paul and Barnabas tell about the great signs God has done. Thanks for pointing that out.

However, I still disagree that the decision is James' and not Peter's. James is acting as the Bishop of Jerusalem and gives the final remarks wich refers to what Peter had said prior.

There is nothing in the context to suggest that Peter is not simply another speaker. He was neither first nor last, and nothing stated his opinion as a decision.
James' decision however was specifically stated to be a decision. Note that James says:

Acts 15:19-20
19 Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, 20 but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood.
NKJV

James put himself in the position of making the judgment. No one challenged that authority, including Peter.

Wangdoodle

Jan 14, 2008, 09:53 PM

There is nothing in the context to suggest that Peter is not simply another speaker. He was neither first nor last, and nothing stated his opinion as a decision.
James' decision however was specifically stated to be a decision. Note that James says:

Acts 15:19-20
19 Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, 20 but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood.
NKJV

James put himself in the position of making the judgment. No one challenged that authority, including Peter.

After the long debate Peter got up and spoke. James in his remarks refers to what Peter had said.

Well, I have to get to bed. You may have the last word for to night if you like.

Wangdoodle

Jan 14, 2008, 09:54 PM

This started with De Maria from another thread and I addressed the issue in that thread. De Maria also started this discussion over Peter if memory serves me correctly.

I forgot to ask. What thread would this be?

Tj3

Jan 14, 2008, 10:03 PM

After the long debate Peter got up and spoke. James in his remarks refers to what Peter had said.

Well, I have to get to bed. You may have the last word for to night if you like.

Peter spoke in the middle of the discussion, after some had spoke, and before Paul and Barnabas and James. He gave his opinion.

James spoke last and made the decision - that is not my claim, that is the Biblical record of the Council proceedings. Further, notice that James' decision is in part based upon Peter's opinion, but differs from Peter's statement. Let's look at both of them in comparison.

Peter suggested:

Acts 15:7-11
En and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, 9 and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? 11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved in the same manner as they."
NKJV

Peter gave no specifics as to what he thought should be done and thus this could in no way be considered a final decision.

James' final decision gave specifics:

Acts 15:19-21
19 Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, 20 but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood. 21 For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath."
NKJV

And what happened? Without further discussion, James' decision was carried out exactly as he stated it:

Acts 15:22-23
22 Then it pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, namely, Judas who was also named Barsabas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren. 23 They wrote this letter by them:
NKJV

And the letter said exactly what James instructed them to put in it.

Acts 15:23-31
He apostles, the elders, and the brethren,

To the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia:

Greetings.

24 Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, 'You must be circumcised and keep the law'--to whom we gave no such commandment-- 25 it seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who will also report the same things by word of mouth. 28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: 29 that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.

Farewell.

30 So when they were sent off, they came to Antioch; and when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the letter.
NKJV

Wangdoodle

Jan 16, 2008, 04:14 PM

Tj3

Jan 16, 2008, 06:14 PM

Why was the Council of Jerusalem convened? To decide if Gentiles needed to be circumcised. Paul did not just search the Scriptures alone.

What was the decision of the council?
Gentiles did not have to be circumcised.

Who announced the council's decision?
Peter did after the long discussion had ended.

Why Peter?
Peter exercised his head ship in announcing the doctrine. James also gave instructions. He is the Bishop of Jerusalem. As the hosting Bishop it is acceptable to give instructions concerning how to proceed with the councils decision. He, in no way undermined Peter's leadership by giving further instructions. It would be expected that his instructions would be carried out perfectly.

You have stated your opinion, but scripture was quite explicit about who decided. You may disagree with it and that is your right, but that will not change what it says. Despite your claim, Peter spoke in the middle of the discussion. Maybe your Bible is missing some verses!

This is a fine example of a well-organized church exercising apostolic authority rather than just going to the Scriptures alone.

Ah nice try, but you forget that what they were penning was in fact to become scripture! Further, if you try to use that argument for going beyond what God's word says, the argument dies on the table since all 12 of the Apostles have since passed away.

Though they did hold a special position, they left us with what they wrote as scripture.

Fr_Chuck

Jan 16, 2008, 07:09 PM

It is obvoius TJ3 has some agenda to disprove the bible as true or write their own version for some reason. The issues using bible verses are very clear unless you just don't want to accept them.

Sad when on their own web site it merely says to question, but I guess it should say to accept it after it is proven not to question it without end.

I would have to ask, if Peter was not the head of the group, who was according to your denominations teachings.

Tj3

Jan 16, 2008, 10:58 PM

It is obvoius TJ3 has some agenda to disprove the bible as true or write their own version for some reason. The issues using bible verses are very clear unless you just don't want to accept them.

Oh yes, Chuck, when you don't agree, then just go after the person. One cannot simply disagree with the Catholic Church - they must have an agenda - right?

I don't know how you ignore the fact that James said "I judge". That is very clear. The fact that he gave detailed instructions and a detailed decision is very clear. If you feel that I have agenda, should I assume that you ignore this because you have an agenda?

I think that the Bible is very clear.

I would have to ask, if Peter was not the head of the group, who was according to your denominations teachings.

Strange, I keep saying that I have no denomination, and yet you keep asking questions like that. BTW, I accept what the Bible says about that also:

Eph 5:22-24
22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body.
NKJV

Do you agree with the Bible or not?

speechlesstx

Jan 17, 2008, 03:01 PM

Sola scriptura is basically the belief that all things necessary for salvation and pertaining to faith and practice are found in the scriptures, that the bible is the source of and authority on these truths.

I admit some take it too far, such as some in the King James only crowd who can't seem to figure out that Sola scriptura does not mean we can't use extra-scriptural material to help in our understanding. They should understand that every time they pull out their concordances, commentaries and lexicons or when the preacher stands and delivers his take on the scriptures, but apparently the irony is lost on them.

This is a tired, old argument I doubt will ever be resolved here on earth. Catholics don't seem to be willing to consider there may have been an error or two down the long, long, long, long, line of traditions and thus it might be wise to settle on the scriptures as the authority - and we will never submit to the authority of the Pope or the Catholic church because experience tells us our relationship with God is not dependent on either. I found God just fine without the Catholic church, and I recall the unkind things Jesus had to say about the traditions of men (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Mar&chapter=7&verse=7#7).

I get that private interpretation can be a dangerous thing, but so is leaving the final authority in the hands of men. It is logical to me to have the traditions and teachings of men subject to scrutiny against the scriptures as opposed to giving man the final say.

Steve

Wondergirl

Jan 17, 2008, 06:04 PM

No, Jesus did not tell Peter to establish a church. (A post on page one explains that.) And Martin Luther wasn't the one who started the first Protestant movement. There were others before him.

Tj3

Jan 17, 2008, 06:08 PM

I do not like the idea of "multiple churches". Jesus told Peter to establish one church, so why so many denominations?

First, Jesus did not tell Peter any such thing. Jesus established one church and one church only - the body of all believers. Afterward, there were a number of churches and denominations started by men, but none of these, no matter how good they are can claim to be the church that Jesus established. That does not mean that there is anything wrong with a denomination if it remains true to God's word, but Jesus' church is the only one in which ALL members are saved.

Even Martin Luther (the guy who started the first protestant movement) on his deathbed said something like "can one person truly be right" or something along those lines.

First, you give no reference for this and second, I don't see what relevance it would have to the discussion in any case.

Sola Scriptura was Martin Luther's idea, him thinking that ordinary people don't need holy people such as bishops and popes to interprate the bible.

First, why would you saythat a person is holy because they have been given a title?
Second, since 2 Peter 1:20 says that no man is tyo interpret scripture, why would you say that some men can?

Sola Scriptura is innaccurate, because how could there be so many different interpretations (there are over 33 thousand protestant churches because of their different interpretations).

That has nothing to do with the issue. Further, I am not a protestant.

So if I smoked weed I could say that the parable of Jesus' sowing seeds is interpreted by me that I'm allowed to sow weed seeds and smoke them. Ok well that was an exaggeration, but if people are aloud to interpret the bible their way, sometimes they'll interpret it in a way that fits their lifestyle better.

Who said that any person is permitted by scripture to interpret their Bible? The only people that I see saying this are Catholics trying to argue against a strawman definition that they created of what they claim sola scriptura is, but that is NOT what the doctrine of sola scriptura teaches.

Wangdoodle

Jan 17, 2008, 08:23 PM

You have stated your opinion, but scripture was quite explicit about who decided. You may disagree with it and that is your right, but that will not change what it says. Despite your claim, Peter spoke in the middle of the discussion. maybe your Bible is missing some verses!!

I think you are over looking the point of the council. Do Gentiles have to be circumcised to be saved? This is the answer to that question.

Act 15:11 But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will."

That was said by Peter. The fact that the council continued with further instructions does not change the fact that Peter announced the answer.

Tj3

Jan 17, 2008, 08:42 PM

I think you are over looking the point of the council. Do Gentiles have to be circumcised to be saved? This is the answer to that question.

Do Jews have to be circumised to be saved? Show me where you find that in scripture.

This is important - too many people take that which is symbolic and try to make it essential for salvation - whether it be the rituals of the OT or baptism.

Act 15:11 But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will."

That was said by Peter. The fact that the council continued with further instructions does not change the fact that Peter announced the answer.

Scripture disagrees with you. Who does it say judged?

Acts 15:19-21
19 Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, 20 but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood. 21 For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath."
NKJV

judge
- Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, judged, judg·ing.
–noun
1. a public officer authorized to hear and decide cases in a court of law; a magistrate charged with the administration of justice.
2. a person appointed to decide in any competition, contest, or matter at issue; authorized arbiter: the judges of a beauty contest.
3. a person qualified to pass a critical judgment: a good judge of horses.
4. an administrative head of Israel in the period between the death of Joshua and the accession to the throne by Saul.
5. (esp. in rural areas) a county official with supervisory duties, often employed part-time or on an honorary basis.
–verb (used with object)
6. to pass legal judgment on; pass sentence on (a person): The court judged him guilty.
7. to hear evidence or legal arguments in (a case) in order to pass judgment; adjudicate; try: The Supreme Court is judging that case.
8. to form a judgment or opinion of; decide upon critically: You can't judge a book by its cover.
9. to decide or settle authoritatively; adjudge: The censor judged the book obscene and forbade its sale.
10. to infer, think, or hold as an opinion; conclude about or assess: He judged her to be correct.
11. to make a careful guess about; estimate: We judged the distance to be about four miles.
12. (of the ancient Hebrew judges) to govern.
–verb (used without object)
13. to act as a judge; pass judgment: No one would judge between us.
14. to form an opinion or estimate: I have heard the evidence and will judge accordingly.
15. to make a mental judgment.
(Source: Dictionary.com, Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.)

To judge is to make the decision. Why reject what scripture states explicitly?

Wangdoodle

Jan 17, 2008, 08:51 PM

Do Jews have to be circumised to be saved? Show me where you find that in scripture.

This is important - too many people take that which is symbolic and try to make it essential for salvation - whether it be the rituals of the OT or baptism.

Hold on there TJ3! I did not say that. And Nether did the Council.

Act 15:11 But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will."

The Jews and the Gentiles are saved through the grace of the Lord.

Tj3

Jan 17, 2008, 09:02 PM

Hold on there TJ3! I did not say that. And Nether did the Council.

Act 15:11 But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will."

The Jews and the Gentiles are saved through the grace of the Lord.

Good!

Now answer my question - Who does scripture say judged?

Wangdoodle

Jan 17, 2008, 09:09 PM

Good!

Now answer my question - Who does scripture say judged?

James' Judgement is based on what the Council had already decided.

Tj3

Jan 17, 2008, 09:14 PM

James' Judgement is based on what the Council had already decided.

Heh heh heh, that is not what scripture says. A "judgment" is a decision and that is the ONLY decision mentioned at the council.

Ultimately we all have to decide if we will accept what scripture says, or submit ourselves to what others tell us to believe.

Wangdoodle

Jan 17, 2008, 09:27 PM

heh heh heh, that is not what scripture says. A "judgement" is a decision and that is the ONLY decision mentioned at the council.

Ultimately we all have to decide if we will accept what scripture says, or submit ourselves to what others tell us to believe.

The statement "But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will", was the conclusion of the "long debate". Yes, James decided to give further instruction on how to proceed. I never said James was not in a position of authority.

Tj3

Jan 17, 2008, 09:34 PM

The statement "But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will", was the conclusion of the "long debate". Yes, James decided to give further instruction on how to proceed. I never said James was not in a position of authority.

The debate continued. Peter spoke in the middle. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that Peter did anything other than give some quality input to the debate, as did others.

But again - James "judged", and James was the last person to speak in the debate, and James gave direction, and James was unchallenged.

Acts 15:19-21
19 Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, 20 but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood. 21 For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath."
NKJV

I cannot imagine how an unbiased reader who read this for the first time by themselves would come to any other conclusion.

Tj3

Jan 18, 2008, 07:24 AM

Let me add to this that the word that James chose to use for "judge" is krino, which means:

NT:2919
Krino (kree'-no); properly, to distinguish, i.e. decide (mentally or judicially); by implication, to try, condemn, punish:

(Strong's Concordance)

James decided. No one else.

De Maria

Jan 24, 2008, 10:36 AM

Before we get side tracked, please answer the opening question:

Would you define the doctrine of Sola Scriptura and show me where it is in Scripture?

Actually, what you gave was a denominational position

I gave the Catholic doctrine as confirmed in Scripture. If that is what you call the denominational position, then you are correct.

which is contrary to what scripture says.

Not so. The verse you are showing has no relevance to the topic at hand. However I will show you that it does prove that Jesus established a Church which He said would never fall.

Matt 16:13-19
13 When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, "Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?" 14 So they said, "Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." 15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" 16 Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." 17 Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
NKJV

What do we see here?

- Jesus was speaking to his disciples as a group

At first. But then 16 SIMON PETER answered and Jesus then focused on him saying to him directly, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 And I also say to you that you are Peter,...."

You can compare this to a class room where the Teacher is asking all the students a question. But when one student answers, the Teacher addresses that one student directly but for all to hear.

- The topic was "who is Jesus"

Correct. The disciples all got it wrong, but Jesus expressly states that Simon Bar Jonah got it right and that he could only get it right if the Father had inspired him to do so.

"Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven."

- Peter answered that he is the Messiah, son of the living God.

Correct.

- Jesus does not immediately refer to Peter, but rather the fact that the revelation of the truth came from God the father.

Wrong. He immediately speaks to the person who answered, Simon Bar Jonah and declares him to be Peter.

The word Peter here is Petros, which means stone

Correct. It means stone.

or a piece of a rock,

It means stone or rock, not "piece of" stone or rock.

and then Jesus refers to the "rock" which is the revelation of who he is, and states that His church shall be built upon this revelation that He is the Christ, the Son of the Living God.

No, no, no. Please point to the exact reference where Jesus say, you are the rock and I am the Rock. I don't see it.

As I see it, Jesus is directly speaking to Simon and telling him how the Father has inspired him to make this statement and as a result Jesus renames Simon, calls him Peter or Rock and says He will build His Church on this Rock which He has just named.

The word "rock" here is Petra,

Peter is the masculine derivative of Petra. They mean the same thing, exactly, except Peter is addressed to a man. Petra has the 'a" or feminine ending and is therefore inappropriate for use as a man's name.

which means rock, or a mass of rock. We do not build a building upon a piece of a rock or a stone, but rather upon a rock that is massive enough to provide a solid foundation.

Peter does not mean "piece of" Rock but simply Rock. The Greek word for piece of Rock or small rock is "lithos".

In addition, Jesus prophecied that Simon would be renamed early on when He first met him. In that instance, St. John explains that Jesus called Simon, "Cephas", Aramaic for large "Rock".

John 1 42 And he brought him to Jesus. And Jesus looking upon him, said: Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter.

Jesus' choice of words made it clear which should be the foundation of His church. This is confirmed in Paul's letter to the church at Corinth:

1 Cor 3:11
11 For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
NKJV

That is precisely the point isn't it? Jesus gave Simon His Own Name. When Jesus gave Simon His Own Name, He did precisely what God did for Moses in the Old Testament:

Exodus 7 1 And the Lord said to Moses: Behold I have appointed thee the God of Pharao: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.

In other words, God is saying to Moses, when you see Pharaoh, you will be in My Place. You will be My Representative.

And Jesus is saying to Simon, when I build my Church, you will be in My Place. You will be My Representative.

Sincerely,

Wondergirl

Jan 25, 2008, 10:20 AM

If Matthew had wanted to write that the Church would be built on Peter, he could have phrased it more explicitly. The Catholic argument also misapplies the English use of the demonstrative pronoun to the Greek language. This assumes that it refers to the noun previously referenced (Peter) when it actually refers to the subject closest to the speaker (Jesus himself).

If Matthew had written "and on you, Peter, I will build," or "and on your confession, Peter, I will build," or "on the Rock which is Me, I will build with you who is the stone," there would be no grounds for debate. But he did not, thus the controversy.

From christiancourier.com --

"If this conversation between Christ and Peter was intended to establish the fact that the church was to be built upon the apostle himself (with the implication of successors), it is strange indeed that Mark, who produced his Gospel record from the vantagepoint of Peter (see Eusebius, 2.15), totally omits the exchange (see Mk. 8:27-30)."

Fr_Chuck

Jan 25, 2008, 10:57 AM

The Catholic Church does not even use the English version for its usage, This concept was accepted, believed and taught before there was even an English translation. They used the original greek text.
And of course it is not just the Catholic that accept this teachings, the Orthodox, many of the Anglican groups, the Lutheran groups ( at least in the early teachings of the church) and more.
It is in fact the smaller number and newer denominations that teach this is not this way. Who often use the English translations as their base without going to the early greek.

Wondergirl

Jan 25, 2008, 11:00 AM

The Lutherans do not accept the pope as the head of the church. They do not believe that Peter was the first pope.

Wangdoodle

Jan 25, 2008, 11:25 AM

Something that I will often do is look at what the early Christians understood about various matters. It should not be ignored that the early Christians understood apostolic succession and tradition. St. Irenaeus gave witness to this in the second century, and St. Cyprian in the third.

Irenaeus, Adversus haereses

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

Cyprian, The Unity of the Church

And he says to him again after the resurrection, 'Feed my sheep.' It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church's) oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is (thus) made clear that there is but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church? This unity firmly should we hold and maintain, especially we bishops, presiding in the Church, in order that we may approve the episcopate itself to be the one and undivided.

Tj3

Jan 25, 2008, 12:30 PM

De Maria

Jan 25, 2008, 06:44 PM

Many things have been taught in the past. I could show you early teachings that disagree with you, but that is where the key issue is - when we have conflciting teachings between church traditiion/denominational teachings and what scripture teaches, which do we hold to be the standard which determines what is right?

You've explained the problem incorrectly. There is no conflict between Church and Scripture. Indeed, the Church canonized the Old Testament and wrote the New.

The conflict is between Church Tradition which includes Scripture and individual interpretation.

I chose to stick with the Bible, which we know to be God's word. Teachings of men can fail, even church fathers (Paul had to rebuke Peter, for example), but God's word will never fail.

Scripture is clear that the Church is the standard:

Matt 18:17, "take him to the Church, if he does not hear the Church treat him as a heathen."

1 Tim 3:15 "The Church, the Pillar and Foundation of Truth."

Sincerely,

De Maria

Tj3

Jan 25, 2008, 07:17 PM

You've explained the problem incorrectly. There is no conflict between Church and Scripture. Indeed, the Church canonized the Old Testament and wrote the New.

You are using the word "church" differently than in scripture - your denomination never existed when scripture was written.

The conflict is between Church Tradition which includes Scripture and individual interpretation.

Your denominational tradition is not scriptural and must be tested by using scripture. No private interpretation is permitted, and that includes by memebers of your denomination.

Scripture is clear that the Church is the standard:

Matt 18:17, "take him to the Church, if he does not hear the Church treat him as a heathen."

1 Tim 3:15 "The Church, the Pillar and Foundation of Truth."

Again, this argues against you. Matthew 18 is speaking of any church not your denomination which did not exist, and is referring to disciplinary matters, not how to determine truth in doctrine.

1 Tim 3:15 does not refer to a denomination but rather the body of Christ.

What does scripture say?

Rev 3:12
12 He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he shall go out no more. And I will write on him the name of My God and the name of the city of My God, the New Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from My God. And I will write on him My new name.
NKJV

So we see that individuals who "overcome" are the pillars.

De Maria

Jan 26, 2008, 05:21 AM

You are using the word "church" differently than in scripture - your denomination never existed when scripture was written.

Show me how?

Matt 16:18 shows that Jesus Christ established a Church with authority to bind and loose.

Matt 18:17 which states that the Church has authority to settle disputes and discipline Her members.

You seem to be hung up on the idea that the Church is only defined as a body of believers, but there is more than one definition for the word as is clear in Scripture.

Your denominational tradition is not scriptural and must be tested by using scripture.

You've yet to provide the evidence that Scripture is the only test. But Scripture shows that the Church has the authority to resolve disputes. And history shows that when two parties dispute over how to interpret Scripture, the Church is the authority to which they have appealed.

No private interpretation is permitted, and that includes by memebers of your denomination.

We don't interpret the Scriptures privately. We interpret in accordance with the Spirit of the Church which is evidenced in Her Traditions.

I've asked you before, how do you keep from interpreting the Scriptures privately since you have nothing upon which to stand?

When I go to interpret Scripture, I say to myself, what did the Fathers of the Church teach?

Luther is an excellent example of an individual who interpreted the Scriptures privately. He taught Sola Scriptura, but Sola Scriptura is not taught in Scripture or in the Traditions of the Church through the centuries.

Again, this argues against you. Matthew 18 is speaking of any church not your denomination which did not exist, and is referring to disciplinary matters, not how to determine truth in doctrine.

There was only one Church in existence at the time and the Catholic Church is the largest Church which can trace Herself to that time. Certainly no confession resulting from the Protestant reformation can trace itself to the Apostles.

And this verse does not say, "except in matters of doctrine". It does not give any exceptions.

1 Tim 3:15 does not refer to a denomination but rather the body of Christ.

But 1 Tim 3:15 explicitly states "the Church". And only the Ancient Churches which trace themselves to the Apostles accept this blessing from God. Only the Ancient Churches consider themselves "Pillars of Truth". Of these, the Catholic Church is the largest.

None of the Reformed institutions consider themselves "Pillars of Truth". In fact, they will immediately admit that they may be teaching error. Although they defend their errors with as much gusto as they defend truth.

What does scripture say?

Rev 3:12
12 He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he shall go out no more. And I will write on him the name of My God and the name of the city of My God, the New Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from My God. And I will write on him My new name.
NKJV

So we see that individuals who "overcome" are the pillars.

This verse is speaking in future terms. We will be pillars in the temple of God if we persevere to the end.

But 1 Tim 3:15 is speaking in present tense. The Church is already the Pillar of Truth.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Tj3

Jan 26, 2008, 07:40 AM

Show me how?

Matt 16:18 shows that Jesus Christ established a Church with authority to bind and loose.

Matt 18:17 which states that the Church has authority to settle disputes and discipline Her members.

The body of Christ - right, not your denomination.

You seem to be hung up on the idea that the Church is only defined as a body of believers, but there is more than one definition for the word as is clear in Scripture.

Agreed. They are organizational churches who are mixes of saved and unsaved, and in some cases apostate. Scripture is clear that Jesus established the body of believers, not apostate churches. So we cannot mix the two meanings.

I see little value in going on on this as long as you are demanding that your denomination IS the body of Christ. Each discussion that we have comes down to this one point.

We don't interpret the Scriptures privately. We interpret in accordance with the Spirit of the Church which is evidenced in Her Traditions.

Denominational traditions (private interpretation of your denomination)

I've asked you before, how do you keep from interpreting the Scriptures privately since you have nothing upon which to stand?

God's word is nothing??

There was only one Church in existence at the time and the Catholic Church is the largest Church which can trace Herself to that time.

There was no denomination at that time and many churches.

Certainly no confession resulting from the Protestant reformation can trace itself to the Apostles.

I am not protestant first of all, and any church which stands upon the word of God as their confession goes back to the Apostles. Your denomination goes back to 325AD.

De Maria

Jan 26, 2008, 09:42 AM

The body of Christ - right, not your denomination.

A visible Church with authority to bind and loose.

Agreed. They are organizational churches who are mixes of saved and unsaved, and in some cases apostate. Scripture is clear that Jesus established the body of believers, not apostate churches. So we cannot mix the two meanings.

I see little value in going on on this as long as you are demanding that your denomination IS the body of Christ. Each discussion that we have comes down to this one point.

I already wrote that the Church considers all the baptized as members of the Body of Christ. I even provided the Catechism.

1267 Baptism makes us members of the Body of Christ: "Therefore . . . we are members one of another." Baptism incorporates us into the Church. From the baptismal fonts is born the one People of God of the New Covenant, which transcends all the natural or human limits of nations, cultures, races, and sexes: "For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body."

791 The body's unity does not do away with the diversity of its members: "In the building up of Christ's Body there is engaged a diversity of members and functions. There is only one Spirit who, according to his own richness and the needs of the ministries, gives his different gifts for the welfare of the Church." The unity of the Mystical Body produces and stimulates charity among the faithful: "From this it follows that if one member suffers anything, all the members suffer with him, and if one member is honored, all the members together rejoice." Finally, the unity of the Mystical Body triumphs over all human divisions: "For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter." Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church." With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist."

Why do you insist on passing on your statement as Catholic Teaching?

Denominational traditions (private interpretation of your denomination)

Church teaching is not private interpretation. It is explanation of the Word of God in the Traditions of Word and Scriptures which were entrusted to Her care.

God's word is nothing??

You aren't standing on God's word but on your interpretation of God's word.

There was no denomination at that time and many churches.

There are many churches today within the Catholic Church. But they are all Catholic.

In the same way, all the Churches mentioned in Scripture are members of one and the same Church.

Ephesians 4 1 I therefore, a prisoner in the Lord, beseech you that you walk worthy of the vocation in which you are called, 2 With all humility and mildness, with patience, supporting one another in charity. 3 Careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4 One body and one Spirit; as you are called in one hope of your calling. 5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism.

I am not protestant first of all,

I didn't say you were. But Sola Scriptura, a doctrine to which you seem to hold, stems from the Protestant reformation and can't be traced to the Apostles nor the Early Christians. It is an innovation about 600 years old.

and any church which stands upon the word of God as their confession goes back to the Apostles. .

You have yet to prove that your INTERPRETATION of Scripture is an accurate reading of the Word of God. Essentially, its your word against everybody else. And just as you don't see the Catholic Church in Scripture, I certainly don't see you in Scripture.

Your denomination goes back to 325AD
The Teachings of the Catholic Church go beyond the year 325 all the way to the Apostles, as I have shown.

Sincerely,

Tj3

Jan 26, 2008, 11:09 AM

A visible Church with authority to bind and loose.

You ignored what I said once again. The body of Christ - right, not your denomination.

I already wrote that the Church considers all the baptized as members of the Body of Christ.

Including Muslims which the CCC refers to as foremost amongst those who worship the true God even though they reject Jesus as Saviour. But again, this had nothing to with who the church is - it once again is not your denomination, but is the body of Christ.

Church teaching is not private interpretation.
Yeah, yeah, yeah - we've heard this before, but it does not agree with the context of the book of Peter. That claim is in and of itself private interpretation.

In the same way, all the Churches mentioned in Scripture are members of one and the same Church.

Even the apostate ones?

Ephesians 4 1 I therefore, a prisoner in the Lord, beseech you that you walk worthy of the vocation in which you are called, 2 With all humility and mildness, with patience, supporting one another in charity. 3 Careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4 One body and one Spirit; as you are called in one hope of your calling. 5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism.

This refers to those who are saved, not the organized church.

I didn't say you were. But Sola Scriptura, a doctrine to which you seem to hold, stems from the Protestant reformation and can't be traced to the Apostles nor the Early Christians. It is an innovation about 600 years old.

It goes back into the OT even as well as your "tradition", but your denomination I guess rejects those parts of "tradition" that don't agree with their private interpretation.

You have yet to prove that your INTERPRETATION of Scripture is an accurate reading of the Word of God. Essentially, its your word against everybody else.

I am tired of repeating myself (and on three different threads) when you won't listen and won't deal with what I said. If you dealt honestly with my comments, I'd put more effort and time into this, but why bother when you ignore what I say and post strawman arguments and mi-representations of what I say, and then claim that I never said what I said in the first place.

When you start taking the time to deal honestly with what I said, maybe that will show me that it is worthwhile spending more time repeating what I said before.

And just as you don't see the Catholic Church in Scripture, I certainly don't see you in Scripture.

Strawman.

The Teachings of the Catholic Church go beyond the year 325 all the way to the Apostles, as I have shown.

Your own Cardinal John Henry Newman disagrees.

Fr_Chuck

Jan 26, 2008, 01:20 PM

The Lutherans do not accept the pope as the head of the church. They do not believe that Peter was the first pope.

No they believe that the church was built as Peter as the leader of the early church and that he was the "rock" being spoken by. Accepting Peter as the Rock and the leader of the early church has nothing to do with accepting the POPE,

The Lutheran Church also recommends private confession in their Catechism, infant baptism and absolution given by the minister.

** Luthers small catechism, copyright 1943**

Luther changed little in his teachings from that of the Catholic Church,

Fr_Chuck

Jan 26, 2008, 01:29 PM

I do find it amazing, in that to fight the idea of private interpretation you must use it. Since to not have it, you have to look at the church for the churches teaching. And if you accept the bible as the word of God , you have to accept the Catholic and Orthodox Church as valid, since they are the ones that set up the New Testement as we know it, They are the ones that copied by hand and protected the bible for a over 1500 years before there was even anyone else having a bible. The Apostles Creed, and more all come out of the Catholic Church.

To deny their place protecting the faith, would mean to deny the history of all that any christian church uses or has today.

If one wants to follow scripture exactly, then why do no other church follow Jewish traditions, Jesus followed them hisself, From him being presented in the temple, to him teaching in the temple.

All churches have a tradition or custom, The same number of songs each Sunday, a sermon about the same length, normally a dinner or meal every so many sundays or on certain times every year.
Or only communion once a year not every service. That is still a tradition or custom

Tj3

Jan 26, 2008, 01:59 PM

I do find it amazing, in that to fight the idea of private interpretation you must use it.

I note that you chose not to validate that claim.

Since to not have it, you have to look at the church for the churches teaching.

I can look to the Bible for God's teaching. Also, when you say the churches teaching, which denomination shall I use? Which denominations do we find in scripture? There are many churches, as there were in NT times.

And if you accept the bible as the word of God , you have to accept the Catholic and Orthodox Church as valid, since they are the ones that set up the New Testement as we know it,

The Catholic church started more than 200 years after it was written.

If one wants to follow scripture exactly, then why do no other church follow Jewish traditions, Jesus followed them hisself, From him being presented in the temple, to him teaching in the temple.

You mean that which is documented in scripture? Let's also look at how Jesus established truth in doctrine - he quoted from scripture.

All churches have a tradition or custom, The same number of songs each Sunday, a sermon about the same length, normally a dinner or meal every so many sundays or on certain times every year.
Or only communion once a year not every service. That is still a tradition or custom

Having a custom is not the same as saying that your custom is doctrinal and must be followed by all other churches.

Wangdoodle

Jan 26, 2008, 07:54 PM

Your own Cardinal John Henry Newman disagrees.

Cardinal Newman said many things before he became Catholic, and after. Will you please provide a reference?

De Maria

Jan 26, 2008, 08:52 PM

You ignored what I said once again. The body of Christ - right, not your denomination.

No I haven't. Jesus Christ established a Church. The Catholic Church is one of the few Churches which can trace Herself to the time of Christ. Certainly no confession believing in the doctrine of Scripture alone can do so.

Including Muslims which the CCC refers to as foremost amongst those who worship the true God even though they reject Jesus as Saviour.

The Church does not condemn anyone out of hand. The Muslims "profess" to believe in God. The Church respects that "claim".

841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."330

But again, this had nothing to with who the church is

True. So why'd you bring it up?

- it once again is not your denomination, but is the body of Christ.

I believe it is. I can trace the Catholic Church to the time of Christ by history and by Scripture. As I have proven.

And you can't trace your belief in Sola Scriptura by history or Scripture.

yeah, yeah, yeah - we've heard this before, but it does not agree with the context of the book of Peter. That claim is in and of itself private interpretation.

Again, I have proven that it is not private interpretation. It is keeping the Traditions which were established by the Apostles.

Your interpretation of Scripture is by defnition, "private" since you don't keep to any denomination, confession or tradition except your own.

Even the apostate ones?

Yes. Jesus said the weeds would grow with the wheat.

This refers to those who are saved, not the organized church.

Where does it say so? I see a reference to baptism. The organized Churches all baptize.

It goes back into the OT

Not true. Jews not only kept oral traditions but they kept some man made traditions which Jesus rejected.

even as well as your "tradition", but your denomination I guess rejects those parts of "tradition" that don't agree with their private interpretation.

Private interpretation is a "singular" matter. You are using a "plural" pronoun to describe the interpretation of the Church. The truth is that the Church explains Scripture in accordance to the spirit of the Authors who are themselves men of the Church.

And yes, the Church does reject any "traditions" like Sola Scriptura which contradict the Word of God.

I am tired of repeating myself (and on three different threads) when you won't listen and won't deal with what I said. If you dealt honestly with my comments, I'd put more effort and time into this, but why bother when you ignore what I say and post strawman arguments and mi-representations of what I say, and then claim that I never said what I said in the first place.

When you start taking the time to deal honestly with what I said, maybe that will show me that it is worthwhile spending more time repeating what I said before.

Strawman.

I think I've dealt quite honestly with all your messages.

Your own Cardinal John Henry Newman disagrees.

I've already answered this on the other thread. I read the statement you provided. I don't see where he disagrees at all. In fact, if you read a little before he also says:

"and yet it is plain from Tertullian that Christians had altars of their own, and sacrifices and priests."

And Tertullian existed 150 years before Constantine. Therefore Constantine could not be the founder of the Catholic Church, since it already existed before he was born.

Sincerely,

Fr_Chuck

Jan 26, 2008, 09:19 PM

Validate, I have to laugh, obvious things, like your claim as to what the bible says, whose interpertatoin do you use if not your own, or some pastor. But seem to refuse the interpertation done by the historic church who helped define what books are even in the bible.
Seems if any group has validity it would be that one.

But it has become obvious that you are set in your way, and merely hate the Catholic Chruch for some misconcieved teaching that you were taught by some other group. Sad,

As for as Constantine, one merely has to look at the Church of the East, ( which became the Orthodox Church) they never were under the Bishop of Rome but yet in most teachings and beleifs have the same teachings, ( minus the supreme positoin of the Bishop of Rome) but in teachings of tradition, the bible and most teachings, they have very similar beleifs.
We often forget to view how the Orthodox and Catholic keep similar teachings, in those similar teachings we find some real truths, since they were the ones, that wre followed since the early church.

Tj3

Jan 26, 2008, 10:28 PM

Validate, I have to laugh, obvious things, like your claim as to what the bible says, whose interpertatoin do you use if not your own, or some pastor.

Scripture interprets scripture. Scripture is not of any private interpretation.

But seem to refuse the interpertation done by the historic church who helped define what books are even in the bible.

Which denomination? I don't see any denominations in scripture therefore, yes, I do reject denominational specific teachings which contradict scripture.

But it has become obvious that you are set in your way, and merely hate the Catholic Chruch for some misconcieved teaching that you were taught by some other group.

Odd that one must be accused of hate if they disagree with one or more doctrines. I think that it is unfortunate that we cannot simple discuss the doctrine without being subject to personal attacks.

Tj3

Jan 26, 2008, 10:29 PM

Cardinal Newman said many things before he became Catholic, and after. Will you please provide a reference?

I already provided both a quote and a reference.

Tj3

Jan 26, 2008, 10:42 PM

No I haven't. Jesus Christ established a Church.

Yep, the body of all believers.

The Catholic Church is one of the few Churches which can trace Herself to the time of Christ. Certainly no confession believing in the doctrine of Scripture alone can do so.

The Catholic church started in 325 AD. I'll stick with the Bible which is the earliest confession that exists, and came centuries before your denomination.

The Church does not condemn anyone out of hand. The Muslims "profess" to believe in God. The Church respects that "claim".

Even though their god has no son, they reject Christ, they reject the gospel... shall I go on?

True. So why'd you bring it up?

You are getting mixed up. I was responding to your comment.

And you can't trace your belief in Sola Scriptura by history or Scripture.

Actually, by both, but I prefer scripture.

Again, I have proven that it is not private interpretation. It is keeping the Traditions which were established by the Apostles.

Really? Then why do the traditions of your denomination contradict the traditions of the Apostles as documented in scripture?

Your interpretation of Scripture is by defnition, "private" since you don't keep to any denomination, confession or tradition except your own.

I don't interpret scripture, and just like Jesus and the Apostles, I belong to no denomination. Were Jesus and the Apostles wrong?

Yes. Jesus said the weeds would grow with the wheat.

So you think that the unsaved are members of the body of Christ - I'd love to see where you find that in scripture.

Where does it say so? I see a reference to baptism. The organized Churches all baptize.

As do Christians who are not part of organized churches and as does the Holy Spirit. Your point is?

Not true. Jews not only kept oral traditions but they kept some man made traditions which Jesus rejected.

True and Jesus condemned the oral traditions which went above and beyond scripture. How does that help your cause?

Private interpretation is a "singular" matter. You are using a "plural" pronoun to describe the interpretation of the Church. The truth is that the Church explains Scripture in accordance to the spirit of the Authors who are themselves men of the Church.

Read the text.

And yes, the Church does reject any "traditions" like Sola Scriptura which contradict the Word of God.

Sola Scriptura is not a tradition.

I think I've dealt quite honestly with all your messages.

Then you have not been reading.

De Maria

Jan 27, 2008, 10:13 AM

Yep, the body of all believers.

As well as an Institution with the power to bind and loose:

Matthew 16 18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

The Catholic church started in 325 AD. I'll stick with the Bible which is the earliest confession that exists, and came centuries before your denomination.

The Bible describes the Catholic Church:

1. The Church is one,

Ephesians 4 5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism.

- united under one leader, a shepherd which we now call the Pope:
John 21 17 He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep.

- Who will keep the Church from heresy:
Luke 22 31 And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: 32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.

2. The Church is Holy, built by Jesus Christ Himself:
Matthew 16 18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

- Who Himself feeds us with His Body:
John 6 52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world.

- The Church gives us the bread of life daily:
Acts Of Apostles 2 46 And continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they took their meat with gladness and simplicity of heart;

3. The Church is Catholic, in fulfillment of the call to make disciples of the world
Matt 28:19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

- Teaching the Traditions of Jesus Christ by word and epistle:
2 Thessalonians 2 14 Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.

4. The Church is apostolic. Being built on the shoulders of the Apostles by Jesus Christ Himself:

Acts Of Apostles 4 33 And with great power did the apostles give testimony of the resurrection of Jesus Christ our Lord; and great grace was in them all.

Even though their god has no son, they reject Christ, they reject the gospel... shall I go on?

Unlike you, the Church teaches that all people are made in the image of God. We believe, even the Muslims are seeking God. If you want to debate Islam, find a Muslim to debate with. I am not a Muslim.

You are getting mixed up. I was responding to your comment.

Show me. I see you are the first one to bring up Muslims:
Message #70, I said,

Quote:
I already wrote that the Church considers all the baptized as members of the Body of Christ.

You responded:

Including Muslims which the CCC refers to as foremost amongst those who worship the true God even though they reject Jesus as Saviour. But again, this had nothing to with who the church is - it once again is not your denomination, but is the body of Christ.

So, you brought up the subject of Muslims.

Actually, by both, but I prefer scripture.

Show me.

Really? Then why do the traditions of your denomination contradict the traditions of the Apostles as documented in scripture?

Show me. I've shown you how I believe Sola Scriptura contradicts Scripture. Show me where any Catholic doctrine contradicts Scripture.

I don't interpret scripture, and just like Jesus and the Apostles, I belong to no denomination. Were Jesus and the Apostles wrong?

Jesus established the Church to which the Apostles belonged. And the Church to which Apostles belonged contains all the same marks as the Church which is now called the Catholic Church. And this Church can trace Herself historically to the Apostles.

So you think that the unsaved are members of the body of Christ - I'd love to see where you find that in scripture.

Matthew 13 30 Suffer both to grow until the harvest, and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers: Gather up first the cockle, and bind it into bundles to burn, but the wheat gather ye into my barn.

John 15 5 I am the vine: you the branches: he that abideth in me, and I in him, the same beareth much fruit: for without me you can do nothing. 6 If any one abide not in me, he shall be cast forth as a branch, and shall wither, and they shall gather him up, and case him into the fire, and be burneth.

As do Christians who are not part of organized churches... Your point is?

Message #70You said:
This refers to those who are saved, not the organized church.

Message #75 I responded:
Where does it say so? I see a reference to baptism. The organized Churches all baptize.

My point is that baptism now saves you:
1 Peter 3 21 Whereunto baptism being of the like form, now saveth you also:

Therefore, you can't exclude those in the organized Churches from the saved.

But you ignored my question yet again. I repeat:
Where does it say so? Where does it say that "This refers to those who are saved, not the organized church."?

... and as does the Holy Spirit...

As does the Holy Spirit? Please explain what you mean by that part of your statement.

True and Jesus condemned the oral traditions which went above and beyond scripture. How does that help your cause?

Catholic Traditions are confirmed in Scripture. Jesus condemned the traditions of men, like Sola Scriptura, which contradict the Word of God.

Read the text.

I have. So I repeat,
Quote:
Private interpretation is a "singular" matter. You are using a "plural" pronoun to describe the interpretation of the Church. The truth is that the Church explains Scripture in accordance to the spirit of the Authors who are themselves men of the Church.

Sola Scriptura is not a tradition.

It has all the earmarks of tradition. It is information passed on from generation to generation.

The word tradition comes from the Latin word traditio which means "to hand down" or "to hand over." It is used in a number of ways in the English language: # A meme; beliefs or customs taught by one generation to the next, often orally.. .
En.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tradition

So, why do you say it isn't a tradition?

Then you have not been reading.

Yes, I have.

Sincerely,

Tj3

Jan 27, 2008, 01:12 PM

Well, since you are not dealing honestly with me and since you refuse to actually discuss anything from scripture but rather simply promote the private interpretation of your denomination, and refuse to consider the responses, but rather just repeat the same old same old, I see no value in continuing.

I will stand on what God's word says, not the private interpretation of your denomination or any other denomination.

If you decide at some future point that you wish to discuss this openly and honestly with me, let me know.

De Maria

Jan 27, 2008, 03:34 PM

Criado

Jul 13, 2008, 10:30 AM

De Maria

Jul 13, 2008, 05:18 PM

Sorry for butting in because I know it is address to TJ.

To answer the original question, the concept of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is written in the bible.

1 Corinthians 4:6 And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.

But that does not say to "believe of men "only" which is written. It says not to believe of men "above" what is written. As a rule of faith, it is something which we Catholics believe. If a tradition of men does not agree with Scripture, we don't believe it. Tradition and Scripture must agree since they are both the Word of God.

2 Thessalonians 2 14 Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.

Revelation 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book.

This verse is precisely about the book of Revelation and not the entire Bible. Otherwise, in adding the New Testament to the Old, we would have violated this verse.

In addition, this says nothing about Scripture being the only authority or rule of faith. It simply says not to add words to the book. For an example, we may cite Luther's adding the word "only" to Romans 3:28.

Again, Scripture Itself tells us to keep two Traditions of Word and Epistle. Therefore, by obeying Scripture we do not thereby add to Scripture.

Isaiah 34:16 Seek ye out of the book of the LORD, and read: no one of these shall fail, none shall want her mate: for my mouth it hath commanded, and his spirit it hath gathered them.

Again, where does it say that one must live by Scripture alone. This simply speaks to the inerrancy of Scripture. But during this time, the Prophets also spoke God's Word and the Levitical Priests were still in authority.

I think Isaias 34:16 shows one of the strongest foundation of Sola Scripture. It is the toil of the Holy Spirit to gather these books, so I don't think the Spirit will neglect something. Also, it categorically says none shall want her mate. So, I don't think we have to add something to it.

Again, this statement speaks to the inerrancy of Scripture. But nowhere does it say that one must live by Scripture alone. In fact, since God Himself established a Priestly system to teach the people the doctrines and since He provided for them Prophets also to tell the people His Word, if He would then also say "Scripture alone", then He would be contradicting Himself.

The bible is complete with information about salvation.

True. But it must be interpreted correctly or you won't get that information.

Regarding your argument above, you fail to consider the limitation of oral tradition;

There is none since God safeguards His Word.

you also fail to provide the basis of its "absolute allowance".

I've never heard of the term "absolute allowance". What is it?

While it is true that we are instructed to hear the church,

Correct.

you should also consider the question, "To who should the church listen?"

To the Word of God.

While it is true that we may preach orally, you should also consider the question, "what will be the basis of our preaching?".

The Word of God.

Traditions are dangerous if it is not based on what is written. Colossians 2:8 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.

Traditions of men which contradict the Word of God are always condemned.

Traditions of men which do not contradict the Word of God are not condemned.

The Traditions of the Catholic Church are Traditions of God since they are precisely the Word of God.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Tj3

Jul 13, 2008, 06:19 PM

But that does not say to "believe of men "only" which is written. It says not to believe of men "above" what is written. As a rule of faith, it is something which we Catholics believe. If a tradition of men does not agree with Scripture, we don't believe it. Tradition and Scripture must agree since they are both the Word of God.

If this were true, you would not need to use tradition to support doctrines such as transubstantiation, praying to the dead, perpetual virginity of Mary, sinlessness of Mary, etc.

2 Thessalonians 2 14 Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.

The Apostles spoke what we now have in the Bible. The Apostles are no longer here to speak. We therefore must adhere solely to what God's word says.

Criado

Jul 13, 2008, 08:35 PM

Based on what I have read to your (De Maria) reply, I noticed that you, yourself, believe in Sola Sciptura.

You said:
If a tradition of men does not agree with Scripture, we don't believe it.

Traditions of men which contradict the Word of God are always condemned.

Traditions of men which do not contradict the Word of God are not condemned.

Then, these statements simply means that the foundation of the Tradition should be the scriptures, then, it's Sola Scriptura...
-----------------

This verse is precisely about the book of Revelation and not the entire Bible. Otherwise, in adding the New Testament to the Old, we would have violated this verse.
I think you're contradicting yourself here. If it only pertains to the book of Revelation, adding all the remaining Books of the bible would have violated this verse; so it not only applicable to Revelation.
----------------
You said:
Again, this statement speaks to the inerrancy of Scripture. But nowhere does it say that one must live by Scripture alone
Then, I don't know what "none" means to you.

Notice that in the Book of Isaiah , it only speak of a book (singular in form), Isaiah prophesy about the bible where its books will be compliled as one. It was also indicated there that it is the Spirit who will gather them. And now, there are already gathered as prophesied.
------------------------
You agree with me when I say "The bible is complete with information about salvation.". If TJ's comment "transubstantiation, praying to the dead, perpetual virginity of Mary, sinlessness of Mary" is true that they are part of your traditions, why add these when you believe the bible is complete when it comes to salvation.
------------------------
You said
The Traditions of the Catholic Church are Traditions of God since they are precisely the Word of God.
How do you know it's from God? I can't see any precision about the graven image and the Sacrament of Confirmaton.

De Maria

Jul 14, 2008, 05:13 AM

If this were true, you would not need to use tradition to support doctrines such as transubstantiation, praying to the dead, perpetual virginity of Mary, sinlessness of Mary, etc.

These Traditions all agree with Scripture. None of those Traditions contradict Scripture.

Unfortunately, the doctrine known as Sola Scriptura certainly does contradict Scripture.

The Apostles spoke what we now have in the Bible. The Apostles are no longer here to speak. We therefore must adhere solely to what God's word says.

But the Bible shows that the Apostles taught others who were prepared to teach others.
We see this process in the book of 2 Timothy:

2 Timothy 2 2 And the things which thou hast heard of me by many witnesses, the same commend to faithful men, who shall be fit to teach others also.

The Scriptures do not say that the Church is to stop teaching after the Apostles pass away.

Sincerely,

De Maria

De Maria

Jul 14, 2008, 05:50 AM

Based on what I have read to your (De Maria) reply, I noticed that you, yourself, believe in Sola Sciptura.

You said:
Quote:
If a tradition of men does not agree with Scripture, we don't believe it.

That is not Sola Scriptura. That is Tradition and Scripture.

Then, these statements simply means that the foundation of the Tradition should be the scriptures, then, it's Sola Scriptura...

It's the other way around. Tradition is the foundation for Scripture. Even Scripture reveals that Tradition came first then Scripture:

2 Peter 1 20 Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation. 21 For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost.

Note that God first inspired men to speak and then men wrote. Not the other way around.

You probably need to brush up on your Christian history. Here's a question for you. Did the Apostles first preach and teach and pass on the Gospel by word? Or did they sit down and write the New Testament?

I think you're contradicting yourself here. If it only pertains to the book of Revelation, adding all the remaining Books of the bible would have violated this verse; so it not only applicable to Revelation.

Again, you seem to be totally lacking in Christian history? Do you not know that St. John wrote this book while in exile in the island of Patmos? He did not write the entire Bible did He? Nor was the Bible yet canonized when He wrote this book. It would not be canonized for two more centuries.

Then, I don't know what "none" means to you.

Notice that in the Book of Isaiah , it only speak of a book (singular in form), Isaiah prophesy about the bible where its books will be compliled as one. It was also indicated there that it is the Spirit who will gather them. And now, there are already gathered as prophesied.

Where does this say that the book which was gathered is our sole authority?

Yet, even at that time, the Jews continued to keep tradition as well as Scripture.

Oral Torah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_Torah)

And what of Isaiah? Did he not preach orally? And was his preaching of God's word lacking in authority?

And what of the Levitical priesthood which God installed precisely to teach His Word to the Jews?

You agree with me when I say "The bible is complete with information about salvation.". If TJ's comment "transubstantiation, praying to the dead, perpetual virginity of Mary, sinlessness of Mary" is true that they are part of your traditions, why add these when you believe the bible is complete when it comes to salvation.

The Bible tells me about these:

transubstantiation

John 6 52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world.

praying to the dead

We do not pray to the dead.

Matthew 22 32 I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? He is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

And Scripture shows that the Saints are alive and listening after their sojourn on this earth:

Luke 16 24 And he cried, and said: Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, to cool my tongue: for I am tormented in this flame.

Hebrews 12 1 And therefore we also having so great a cloud of witnesses over our head, laying aside every weight and sin which surrounds us, let us run by patience to the fight proposed to us:

perpetual virginity of Mary

The Bible does not say that Mary had conjugal relations with St. Joseph. And since she is a faithful woman, she had none with any other man.

Luke 1 34 And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man?

sinlessness of Mary"

The Bible says that there are some who did not sin according to the transgression of Adam:

Romans 5 14 But death reigned from Adam unto Moses, even over them also who have not sinned after the similitude of the transgression of Adam, who is a figure of him who was to come.

There are some for whom the Scriptures whom the Scriptures record were taken to heaven without tasting death. Since death is the punishment for sin, then it is possible that Enoch and Elijah did not sin.

Therefore it does not violate Scripture that Mary also did not sin.

How do you know it's from God?

Because these are the Traditions which are the foundation of Scripture. And we know that Scripture is God breathed. So, the Traditions which preceded Scripture must also be God breathed.

I can't see any precision about the graven image

God forbids the making of graven idols. Idols are false gods:

Deut 5 7 Thou shalt not have strange gods in my sight. 8 Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of any things, that are in heaven above, or that are in the earth beneath, or that abide in the waters under the earth. 9 Thou shalt not adore them, and thou shalt not serve them.

However, God Himself ordered the making of graven images as religious icons:

Exodus 25 18 Thou shalt make also two cherubims of beaten gold, on the two sides of the oracle.

and the Sacrament of Confirmaton.

Ephesians 1 13 In whom you also, after you had heard the word of truth, (the gospel of your salvation) in whom also believing, you were signed with the holy Spirit of promise,

Sincerely,

De Maria

Tj3

Jul 14, 2008, 11:23 AM

These Traditions all agree with Scripture. None of those Traditions contradict Scripture.

I have yet to see anything in scripture to valdiate any of these, nor has any Roman catholic ever put forward scriptural validation. Just saying so does not make it so. On the other hand, I can, and have demonstrated that these are in opposition to what scripture says.

Unfortunately, the doctrine known as Sola Scriptura certainly does contradict Scripture.

Once again, your claim.

The Scriptures do not say that the Church is to stop teaching after the Apostles pass away.

Agreed - keep in mind that the church is not your denomination or any other denomination, but the body of Christ. The church teaches what God's word says. We are not go beyond what is written. The church also does not add to, or subtract from what the Bible says.

sndbay

Jul 14, 2008, 02:15 PM

Where does this say that the book which was gathered is our sole authority?

De Maria

It is absolutely necessary for true interpretation and of importance to recognize Truth. God's Word is made up of words which the Holy Spirit teaches. And I would causion anyone in denying the Holy Spirit !

1 Thessalonians 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received [it] not [as] the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.
1 Corinthians 2:13 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.
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:
2 Peter 1:21 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.

Criado

Jul 14, 2008, 10:33 PM

That is not Sola Scriptura. That is Tradition and Scripture.
When there is/are contradiction/s between your Tradition and the Scripture, which shall prevail?

Note that God first inspired men to speak and then men wrote. Not the other way around.

You probably need to brush up on your Christian history. Here's a question for you. Did the Apostles first preach and teach and pass on the Gospel by word? Or did they sit down and write the New Testament?

I know this for a fact as written in I John 1:3-4. Everything happened first before they wrote it.

Again, you seem to be totally lacking in Christian history? Do you not know that St. John wrote this book while in exile in the island of Patmos? He did not write the entire Bible did He? Nor was the Bible yet canonized when He wrote this book. It would not be canonized for two more centuries.
But you missed the point: if the admonition is only applicable to the book of Revelation, then, adding it to something or adding something to it (addition is commutative), will be a violation. Then why is it added to the Bible?

Where does this say that the book which was gathered is our sole authority?
Isaiah 34:16 Seek ye out of the book of the LORD, and read: no one of these shall fail, NONE shall want her mate: for my mouth it hath commanded, and his spirit it hath gathered them.

I'll pass commenting on the traditions you addressed because I don't want to make the issue broader but I will comment on them on due time.

Galveston1

Jul 17, 2008, 03:06 PM

Since this is obviously a question regarding the "Church" (apparently) versus Scripture, we have to determine what the Church is, and is not. Show us which group most closely fits the picture of the Church shown in action in the book of Acts. Just because someone says "this is the Church" does not make it so. If you cannot show that your denomination, group, fellowship, etc. matches the profile of that first church, then there is no reason for us to value its teaching, rituals, etc. because they can (and do) change with time. The Bible does not change unless men deliberately or ignorantly alter it. I cannot accept a man's word that is contridictory to Scripture.

De Maria

Jul 24, 2008, 10:52 AM

I have yet to see anything in scripture to valdiate any of these, nor has any Roman catholic ever put forward scriptural validation. Just saying so does not make it so. On the other hand, I can, and have demonstrated that these are in opposition to what scripture says.

In message #88 I post many.

On the other hand, no one has ever shown any Scripture validating the doctrine of Scripture alone.

Once again, your claim.

No. It is right there in Scripture, several times:

The doctrine of Scripture alone states that Scripture alone is the rule of faith.

Yet, Scripture says that the Church is the Pillar of Truth (1 Tim 3:15).

The doctrine of Scripture alone says that Scripture is man's only authority.

Yet Scripture says that the Church is also man's authority (Matt 18:17).

So, the doctrine of Scripture alone contradicts Scripture.

Agreed - keep in mind that the church is not your denomination or any other denomination, but the body of Christ. The church teaches what God's word says. We are not go beyond what is written. The church also does not add to, or subtract from what the Bible says.

Agreed. But you keep accusing us of going beyond what is written. On the other hand, it seems to me it is Protestants who have actually added man made traditions to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and removed entire books from the Word of God.

Sincerely,

De Maria

De Maria

Jul 24, 2008, 11:00 AM

Since this is obviously a question regarding the "Church" (apparently) versus Scripture,

That is a false dichotomy created by Protestants. It is not the Church vs Scripture.

The Church promotes and teaches the Word of God in Tradition and Scripture.
The Scriptures are evidence that Jesus Christ established a Church to Teach and guide mankind.

The Church loves Scripture.

we have to determine what the Church is, and is not.

This is definitely a good exercise.

Show us which group most closely fits the picture of the Church shown in action in the book of Acts. Just because someone says "this is the Church" does not make it so. If you cannot show that your denomination, group, fellowship, etc. matches the profile of that first church, then there is no reason for us to value its teaching, rituals, etc. because they can (and do) change with time. The Bible does not change unless men deliberately or ignorantly alter it. I cannot accept a man's word that is contridictory to Scripture.

Great idea:

Although the Catholic Church was not known as the "Catholic" Church until 100 years after the Birth of our Lord,.

“Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 Ignatius of Antioch; 110 A.D. ).

... it is the Catholic Church alone which is described in Scripture:

Daily Mass:
Acts Of Apostles 2 42 And they were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles, and in the communication of the breaking of bread, and in prayers...

Holy Eucharist:
1 Corinthians 10 16 The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord?

One Shepherd:
John 21 17 He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep.

One Lord, One faith, one baptism,
Ephesians 4 5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism.

One doctrine:
Romans 16 17 Now I beseech you, brethren, to mark them who make dissensions and offences contrary to the doctrine which you have learned, and avoid them.

Justification by faith and works
James 2 24 Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?

James 2 18 But some man will say: Thou hast faith, and I have works: show me thy faith without works; and I will show thee, by works, my faith.

Prayer to Saints:
Luke 16 24 And he cried, and said: Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, to cool my tongue: for I am tormented in this flame.

Suffering to expiate sin:
1 Peter 4 1 Christ therefore having suffered in the flesh, be you also armed with the same thought: for he that hath suffered in the flesh, hath ceased from sins:

Infallible Church:
1 Timothy 3 15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

Authoritative Church:
Matthew 18 17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.

Teaching Church:
Matthew 28 19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

And there are many more. The Catholic Church is the one and only Bible Church.

Sincerely,

De Maria

De Maria

Jul 24, 2008, 11:19 AM

When there is/are contradiction/s between your Tradition and the Scripture, which shall prevail?

The Word of God does not contradict Itself. The Word of God is contained in Tradition and Scripture.

On the other hand, when people come up with novel interpretations of Scripture, such as Luther did when he proposed Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide, we look to the Word of God in Tradition and Scripture.

In so doing we see that there are no such Traditional teachings in all of Christendom until the advent of Luther and we see that Luther contradicted Scripture in proposing them (Matt 18:17 Church as authority and James 2:20 Faith and works.)

I know this for a fact as written in I John 1:3-4. Everything happened first before they wrote it.

Correct.

But you missed the point: if the admonition is only applicable to the book of Revelation, then, adding it to something or adding something to it (addition is commutative), will be a violation. Then why is it added to the Bible?

Let us divide the word of God rightly.

2 Corinthians 3 6 Who also hath made us fit ministers of the new testament, not in the letter, but in the spirit. For the letter killeth, but the spirit quickeneth.

If you take this admonition overly literally, you kill the meaning. It is like my saying to you, "it is raining cats and dogs" and you responding, "but I see drops of water."

When St. John admonished that nothing should be added or taken from his book (i.e. Revelations), he meant that the book should not be changed or perverted.

Adding Revelations to the Bible is not in any way perverting or changing the meaning of the book but it is a recognition that it is the Word of God.

Isaiah 34:16 Seek ye out of the book of the LORD, and read: no one of these shall fail, NONE shall want her mate: for my mouth it hath commanded, and his spirit it hath gathered them.

You underlined and bolded NONE and undelined the words "shall want her mate" as though that were an answer. What does this mean to you?

I'll pass commenting on the traditions you addressed because I don't want to make the issue broader but I will comment on them on due time.

Good idea. I suggest you begin a question on each topic. That way we can investigate thoroughly.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Tj3

Jul 24, 2008, 11:43 AM

In message #88 I post many.

You and I have been through these before and in context, none of these support these claims. I do not intend to start having 10 page posts by going through all of these at once, but if you wish, we could go through them one at a time and examine them from a scriptural context.

On the other hand, no one has ever shown any Scripture validating the doctrine of Scripture alone.

That can indeed be done, but does not need to be done. The reason is that we both accept the whole of scripture as insp[ire by God, therefore we do not need to further establish that. Teh difference is that you have chosen to accept input external to the Bible and therefore its equivalency to scripture need to be validated - leaviong the onus on you to establish it equivalency. It is not logical; to assume that everything is scriptural until proven otherwise.

Yet, Scripture says that the Church is the Pillar of Truth (1 Tim 3:15).

Nowhere does this say that we are to go beyond scripture, and this is not referring to any denomination.

Yet Scripture says that the Church is also man's authority (Matt 18:17).

The critical question here is - what is the church? A denomination or the body of Christ?

So, the doctrine of Scripture alone contradicts Scripture.

None of these verses tell us that we are to establish doctrine based upon what any church says. You are reading that into these passages. On the other hand, scripture does say not to go beyond ehat is written.

Agreed. But you keep accusing us of going beyond what is written. On the other hand, it seems to me it is Protestants who have actually added man made traditions to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and removed entire books from the Word of God.

I am not a protestant, but I am unaware of a protestant denomination removing any books from the Bible. I am aware that one denomination (RCC) added books which contain passages contradicting scripture at the Council of Trent. Perhaps that is what you are thinking of.

sndbay

Jul 24, 2008, 12:18 PM

Great idea:

Although the Catholic Church was not known as the "Catholic" Church until 100 years after the Birth of our Lord, ....

“Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 Ignatius of Antioch; 110 A.D. ).

De Maria

First on the list and after some research this is where it took me.

Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 Ignatius of Antioch; 110 A.D.
ST. IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH (http://www.maryourmother.net/Ignatius.html)
Letter of Ignatius of Antioch to the Ephesians 18-19
__________________________________
I am not sure where Ephesian 18-19 takes anyone else?? However a letter that was refer in Ephesians 6:24 which was by a friend of Paul's who was a Asiatic Christian. The information below tells you what scripture says and includes the meaning of Asiatic Christian which was confirmed by Strong's Hebrew - Greek Dictionary. I offer the links yet you have a choice in your own research.
__________________________________
Ephesians 6:24 Grace with all them that love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity. Amen. [[[To [the] Ephesians written from Rome, by Tychicus.]]]

Meaning : Grace 5485 [be] with 3326 all 3956 them that love 25 our 2257 Lord 2962 Jesus 2424 Christ 5547 in 1722 sincerity 861. Amen 281. [[[To 4314 [the] Ephesians 2180 written 1125 from 575 Rome 4516, by 1223 Tychicus 5190.]]]

Tychicus 5190 = Asiatic Christian

Asiatic Christian
NETBible: Tychicus (http://net.bible.org/dictionary.php?word=Tychicus)

________________________________________

Posting this is one step in teaching the importance of researching Truth. Please remember my opinion is respect for any church that teaches of Christ.. . And Christ's Worthyness.

[B]John 3:35 The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand.

De Maria

Jul 24, 2008, 12:24 PM

You and I have been through these before and in context, none of these support these claims.

Yes, we have. Obviously, I believe they do.

I do not intend to start having 10 page posts by going through all of these at once, but if you wish, we could go through them one at a time and examine them from a scriptural context.

That would be wonderful.

That can indeed be done, but does not need to be done. The reason is that we both accept the whole of scripture as insp[ire by God, therefore we do not need to further establish that. Teh difference is that you have chosen to accept input external to the Bible and therefore its equivalency to scripture need to be validated - leaviong the onus on you to establish it equivalency. It is not logical; to assume that everything is scriptural until proven otherwise.

Your logic fails, in my opinion, for two reasons:

First of all, Sola Scriptura means Scripture ALONE. And that certainly needs to be proven. Especially since Scripture never claims sole authority but points to both Tradition and the Church as authoritative as well.

Second, it is Scripture which establishes the equivalency of Tradition. It is Scripture which says that we must keep the Traditions of Word and Epistle. It is Scripture which calls the oral teaching of the Apostles, the Word of God.

So, I accept the responsibility to prove that the Scripture points to more than one authority:

2 Thessalonians 2 14 Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.

1 Thessalonians 2 13 Therefore, we also give thanks to God without ceasing: because, that when you had received of us the word of the hearing of God, you received it not as the word of men, but (as it is indeed) the word of God, who worketh in you that have believed.

1 Timothy 3 15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

That's just a few, there are more.

Now, please provide the Scripture which says that the Scriptures "Alone" are our authority.

Nowhere does this say that we are to go beyond scripture, and this is not referring to any denomination.

Nor does the Church teach that we are to go beyond Scripture. The Church teaches that Scripture and Tradition are one word of God:

CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 97 (192 bytes ) preview document matches
"Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God" (DV 10) in which, as in a mirror, the pilgrim Church contemplates God,
URL: CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 97 (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/97.htm)

The critical question here is - what is the church? A denomination or the body of Christ?

It is the body of Christ. That is why it is authoritative.

None of these verses tell us that we are to establish doctrine based upon what any church says. You are reading that into these passages. On the other hand, scripture does say not to go beyond ehat is written.

The doctrine of Scripture alone certainly goes beyond what is written.

I am not a protestant, but I am unaware of a protestant denomination removing any books from the Bible. I am aware that one denomination (RCC) added books which contain passages contradicting scripture at the Council of Trent. Perhaps that is what you are thinking of.

No. Jesus Christ Himself used the Septuagint version of the Bible. This includes the Deuterocanonicals. A total of 46 books.

The Church accepted this version from Jesus Christ.

The remnant of Jews who despised Jesus removed the 7 non Hebrew books from their Scriptures. They accepted only the 39 books written originally in Hebrew.

Luther, in his zeal against the Catholic Church, sided with Christ's enemies. It is Luther who discarded 7 books from the Christian Bible which had stood for 12 centuries before he was born:
The Canon of the Bible (http://www.catholicapologetics.org/ap030700.htm)

Sincerely,

De Maria

De Maria

Jul 24, 2008, 12:29 PM

First on the list and after some research this is where it took me.

Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 Ignatius of Antioch; 110 A.D.
ST. IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH (http://www.maryourmother.net/Ignatius.html)
Letter of Ignatius of Antioch to the Ephesians 18-19
__________________________________
I am not sure where Ephesian 18-19 takes anyone else??? However a letter that was refer in Ephesians 6:24 which was by a friend of Paul's who was a Asiatic Christian. The information below tells you what scripture says and includes the meaning of Asiatic Christian which was confirmed by Strong's Hebrew - Greek Dictionary. I offer the links yet you have a choice in your own research.
__________________________________
Ephesians 6:24 Grace with all them that love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity. Amen. [[[To [the] Ephesians written from Rome, by Tychicus.]]]

Meaning : Grace 5485 [be] with 3326 all 3956 them that love 25 our 2257 Lord 2962 Jesus 2424 Christ 5547 in 1722 sincerity 861. Amen 281. [[[To 4314 [the] Ephesians 2180 written 1125 from 575 Rome 4516, by 1223 Tychicus 5190.]]]

Tychicus 5190 = Asiatic Christian

Asiatic Christian
NETBible: Tychicus (http://net.bible.org/dictionary.php?word=Tychicus)

________________________________________

Posting this is one step in teaching the importance of researching Truth. Please remember my opinion is respect for any church that teaches of Christ. . . And Christ's Worthyness.

[B]John 3:35 The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand.

I don't understand your message.

Since you are addressing it to the point that the Church was called Catholic as recently as 100 years after the birth of Christ, I assume you think that this somehow contradicts that statement.

But I don't see how. Please explain.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Tj3

Jul 24, 2008, 07:04 PM

Y
Your logic fails, in my opinion, for two reasons:

First of all, Sola Scriptura means Scripture ALONE. And that certainly needs to be proven. Especially since Scripture never claims sole authority but points to both Tradition and the Church as authoritative as well.

Look at 2 Tim 3:16 and tell me where you find tradition in that. Indeed, you will never find your denomination's tradition given any authority anywhere in scripture.

Second, it is Scripture which establishes the equivalency of Tradition. It is Scripture which says that we must keep the Traditions of Word and Epistle. It is Scripture which calls the oral teaching of the Apostles, the Word of God.

Note that this refers to what the Apostles taught. And then what does it say?

2 Thess 2:15-16
15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.
NKJV

Note that the same traditions that they speak of were taught verbally by the Apostles and in writing. We no longer have the Apostles, therefore we have that word in writing alone.

1 Thessalonians 2 13 Therefore, we also give thanks to God without ceasing: because, that when you had received of us the word of the hearing of God, you received it not as the word of men, but (as it is indeed) the word of God, who worketh in you that have believed.

Nothing about tradition here.

1 Timothy 3 15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.[/I]

Nothing about tradition here.

Nor does the Church teach that we are to go beyond Scripture. The Church teaches that Scripture and Tradition are one word of God:

CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 97 (192 bytes ) preview document matches
"Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God" (DV 10) in which, as in a mirror, the pilgrim Church contemplates God,
URL: CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 97 (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/97.htm)

Your denomination teaches that. That is what scripture refers to here:

Mark 7:9
9 And He said to them, "All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition.
NKJV

It is the body of Christ. That is why it is authoritative.

I note that you avoided the question. But if you say that the word "church" refers to the body of Christ, then it is most certainly not your denomination or any denomination.

No. Jesus Christ Himself used the Septuagint version of the Bible. This includes the Deuterocanonicals.

Note that he only used scripture when dealing with doctrine. Many Bibles contain other books as reference material - that does not make them canonical.

De Maria

Jul 24, 2008, 07:35 PM

Look at 2 Tim 3:16

2 Timothy 3 16 All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice,

We believe that all Scripture is God breathed. But not Scripture ALONE. First man was God breathed, that is inspired, to speak and then to write the Scriptures:

2 Peter 1 20 Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation. 21 For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost.

So, 2 Tim 3:16 certainly does not support the idea of Scripture alone.

and tell me where you find tradition in that.

Sure. But you have to read the entire letter of 2 Tim for that.

IMPOSITION OF HANDS - this is how priests are ordained. It is a Tradition.

First Chapter - verse 6 For which cause I admonish thee, that thou stir up the grace of God which is in thee, by the imposition of my hands.

COMMEND TO FAITHFUL MEN WHO SHALL TEACH OTHERS - the very definition of tradition.

Second Chapter - 1 Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace which is in Christ Jesus: 2 And the things which thou hast heard of me by many witnesses, the same commend to faithful men, who shall be fit to teach others also.

TEACH, REPROVE, CORRECT AND INSTRUCT - Again, the definition of tradition.

Third Chapter - 16 All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, 17 That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.

THE WORK OF AN EVANGELIST - another Tradition.

Fourth Chapter - 2 Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine. 3 For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: 4 And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables. 5 But be thou vigilant, labour in all things, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill thy ministry. Be sober.

Indeed, you will never find your denomination's tradition given any authority anywhere in scripture.

I've proven it over and over. All you do is deny what I produce. But you produce nothing tangible in response.

Note that this refers to what the Apostles taught. And then what does it say?

2 Thess 2:15-16
15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.
NKJV

Note that the same traditions that they speak of were taught verbally by the Apostles and in writing. We no longer have the Apostles, therefore we have that word in writing alone.

What you seem not to understand is that the Traditions came first. The New Testament is an example of Tradition which is written down. The Traditions of word did not lose effect because they were written down.

Nothing about tradition here.

1 Thessalonians 2 13 Therefore, we also give thanks to God without ceasing: because, that when you had received of us the word of the hearing of God, you received it not as the word of men, but (as it is indeed) the word of God, who worketh in you that have believed.

C'mon TJ, it is the very definition of tradition. Tradition is passed down or taught. St. Paul says that they accepted the word of the Apostles, not as the word of men, but as the Word of God, which it is.

Nothing about tradition here.

The Bible is, in essence, tradition written down. We pass the Bible down from generation to generation don't we?

This verse, 1 Tim 3:15, is the basis for our Doctrine of the Infallibility of the Church which is here described as the Pillar of Truth. Only an infallible institution could be so described.

Your denomination teaches that. That is what scripture refers to here:

Mark 7:9
9 And He said to them, "All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition.
NKJV

Actually, Scripture says that.

I note that you avoided the question.

I did? Where?

But if you say that the word "church" refers to the body of Christ, then it is most certainly not your denomination or any denomination.

I have traced my Church to the Bible by showing the basis for our beliefs, Traditions and teachings. I have also proven that your traditions of Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide contradict the Scriptures.

Note that he only used scripture when dealing with doctrine. Many Bibles contain other books as reference material - that does not make them canonical.

What does then? For Catholics, we understand that the Catholic Church selected the Canon.

Also, we notice that Luther, an extra biblical person, threw out seven of the originally canonized Scriptures. This puts Protestants and other so called Bible Christians of the Reformed traditions in a precarious position. In either case, they have accepted an extra biblical authority.

If the Catholic Church did not select your canon of Scripture, and if Luther did not modify the Church's original canon, who did?

And if each book of Scripture identifies itself or if Scripture contains a list of the canonized books, show me where it is chapter and verse.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Tj3

Jul 26, 2008, 02:03 PM

2 Timothy 3 16 All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice,

We believe that all Scripture is God breathed. But not Scripture ALONE. First man was God breathed, that is inspired, to speak and then to write the Scriptures:

Then the onus is on YOU to prove that anything that you wish to add to the canon is the word of God.

sndbay

Jul 26, 2008, 02:28 PM

I don't understand your message.

Since you are addressing it to the point that the Church was called Catholic,as recently as 100 years after the birth of Christ, I assume you think that this somehow contradicts that statement.

But I don't see how. Please explain.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Posting #94

Although the Catholic Church was not known as the "Catholic" Church until 100 years after the Birth of our Lord, ....

“Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 Ignatius of Antioch; 110 A.D. ).

...it is the Catholic Church alone which is described in Scripture:
De Maria

First on your list was as shown: Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 Ignatius of Antioch; 110 A.D.
I did indeed research this to find what the Catholic church, as their teaching
ST. IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH
Letter of Ignatius of Antioch to the Ephesians 18-19

As the research reveals also what the Bible / scripture has Ephesians 6:24 which was by a friend of Paul's who was a Asiatic Christian. The information below tells you what scripture says and includes the meaning of Asiatic Christian which was confirmed by Strong's Hebrew - Greek Dictionary. I offer the links yet you have a choice in your own research.

Ephesians 6:24 Grace [be] with all them that love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity. Amen. [[[To [the] Ephesians written from Rome, by Tychicus.]]]

Meaning : Grace 5485 [be] with 3326 all 3956 them that love 25 our 2257 Lord 2962 Jesus 2424 Christ 5547 in 1722 sincerity 861. Amen 281. [[[To 4314 [the] Ephesians 2180 written 1125 from 575 Rome 4516, by 1223 Tychicus 5190.]]]

Tychicus 5190 = meaning Asiatic Christian

As for the christian teaching would be offered on Asiatic Christian
NETBible: Tychicus (http://net.bible.org/dictionary.php?word=Tychicus)

This definitely takes some study time and research. I wanted to understand the Catholic Church's first on the list, rule of thumb. Yet I do confirm scripture by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost who wrote the letter and what connection it has to the ministry.

Tj3

Jul 26, 2008, 03:13 PM

Since you are addressing it to the point that the Church was called Catholic as recently as 100 years after the birth of Christ, I assume you think that this somehow contradicts that statement.

Don't make the mistake of mixing up catholic meaning "universal" with the Roman Catholic Church denomination started in 325AD by Constantine.

De Maria

Jul 26, 2008, 03:30 PM

Then the onus is on YOU to prove that anything that you wish to add to the canon is the word of God.

Why? I never professed such a thing.

De Maria

Jul 26, 2008, 03:32 PM

Posting #94

First on your list was as shown: Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 Ignatius of Antioch; 110 A.D.
I did indeed research this to find what the Catholic church, as their teaching
ST. IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH
Letter of Ignatius of Antioch to the Ephesians 18-19

As the research reveals also what the Bible / scripture has Ephesians 6:24 which was by a friend of Paul's who was a Asiatic Christian. The information below tells you what scripture says and includes the meaning of Asiatic Christian which was confirmed by Strong's Hebrew - Greek Dictionary. I offer the links yet you have a choice in your own research.

Ephesians 6:24 Grace [be] with all them that love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity. Amen. [[[To [the] Ephesians written from Rome, by Tychicus.]]]

Meaning : Grace 5485 [be] with 3326 all 3956 them that love 25 our 2257 Lord 2962 Jesus 2424 Christ 5547 in 1722 sincerity 861. Amen 281. [[[To 4314 [the] Ephesians 2180 written 1125 from 575 Rome 4516, by 1223 Tychicus 5190.]]]

Tychicus 5190 = meaning Asiatic Christian

As for the christian teaching would be offered on Asiatic Christian
NETBible: Tychicus (http://net.bible.org/dictionary.php?word=Tychicus)

This definitely takes some study time and research. I wanted to understand the Catholic Church's first on the list, rule of thumb. Yet I do confirm scripture by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost who wrote the letter and what connection it has to the ministery.

Are you saying that the word "Catholic" means "asiatic"?

Tj3

Jul 26, 2008, 03:33 PM

Why? I never professed such a thing.

Good. Then we are agreed that the canon is composed of the 66 books of the Bible.

De Maria

Jul 26, 2008, 03:34 PM

Don't make the mistake of mixing up catholic meaning "universal" with the Roman Catholic Church denomination started in 325AD by Constantine.

The Catholic Church was established by Jesus Christ. I remember your posting a document by the Great Cardinal Newman, please post it again and we can highlight your error again.

Sincerely,

De Maria

De Maria

Jul 26, 2008, 03:37 PM

Good. Then we are agreed that the canon is composed of the 66 books of the Bible.

Lol!! :eek:

C'mon TJ. Is this debate?

I have agreed to no such thing. I simply said that I never added anything to the canon. Nor did the Church. It was Luther who removed 7 books from the Canon.

Unless you want to skip 1400 years of Christian worship and use the Jewish council of Jamnia as your basis for such a decision.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Tj3

Jul 26, 2008, 03:39 PM

Lol!!!:eek:

C'mon TJ. Is this debate?

Well, you said that you did not want to add anything to the canon which I indiacted earlier as being the 66 books that we all agreed upon, so either you are willing to defend the additions to the canon or not.

Tj3

Jul 26, 2008, 03:40 PM

The Catholic Church was established by Jesus Christ. I remember your posting a document by the Great Cardinal Newman, please post it again and we can highlight your error again.

De Maria

Since you already know that even your Cardinal Newman stated what is historical fact, and that is that your denomination started in 325AD (started by Emperor Constantine), there is no need to repost. I see no one else on this thread who is under the mis-understanding that the Roman Church was started earlier.

sndbay

Jul 26, 2008, 03:54 PM

Are you saying that the word "Catholic" means "asiatic"?

No.. It would not be true. Paul had 12 friends that helped him with teaching.

NETBible: Tychicus (http://net.bible.org/dictionary.php?word=Tychicus)

TYCHICUS - tik'-i-kus (Tuchikos, lit. "chance"): Mentioned 5 times in the New Testament (Acts 20:4; Eph 6:21; Col 4:7; 2 Tim 4:12; Tit 3:12); an Asiatic Christian, a friend and companion of the apostle Paul.

Tj3

Jul 26, 2008, 04:55 PM

Unless you want to skip 1400 years of Christian worship and use the Jewish council of Jamnia as your basis for such a decision.

1400 years of what?

“St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries...For example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books. According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church at the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent”
(Source: The New Catholic Encyclopedia, The Canon)

As I said, the Roman Church added these books to their Bible at the Council of Trent.

De Maria

Jul 26, 2008, 09:51 PM

Well, you said that you did not want to add anything to the canon which I indiacted earlier as being the 66 books that we all agreed upon, so either you are willing to defend the additions to the canon or not.

There were no additions to the Canon. Luther removed seven books from the Canon.

By what authority did Luther remove these seven books?

De Maria

Jul 26, 2008, 09:58 PM

Since you already know that even your Cardinal Newman stated what is historical fact, and that is that your denomination started in 325AD (started by Emperor Constantine), there is no need to repost.

Twisiting my words doesn't add to your credibility TJ.

You provided a document in a previous debate wherein you claimed that Cardinal Newman recognized that the Catholic Church was started by Constantine in 325ad.

I repeat, provide it again and AGAIN I will point out your error of interpreting that document.

Cardinal Newman was a Bishop of the Catholic Church TJ. You don't get to be a Bishop of the Catholic Church if you teach error. And if you become a Bishop of the Catholic Church and begin to teach error, you are quickly anathematized.

I see no one else on this thread who is under the mis-understanding that the Roman Church was started earlier.

1. It isn't a misunderstanding. It is verifiable history.
2. Are there any other Catholics on this thread?

And certainly, no Sola Scripturist can claim that their beliefs were held from the time of Christ, since that false doctrine was introduced by Luther in the 1500s.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Tj3

Jul 26, 2008, 10:06 PM

There were no additions to the Canon. Luther removed seven books from the Canon.

By what authority did Luther remove these seven books?

Heh heh heh - so you refuse to even accept from Roman catholic sources say:D . If you reject what is known historical fact, acknowledged by both Catholic and non-Catholic sources, then there is really no room to discuss the issue with you.

For an intelligent discussion to take place, it is important that you be willing to acknowledge historic facts.

De Maria

Jul 26, 2008, 10:09 PM

1400 years of what?

“St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries...For example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books. According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church at the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent”
(Source: The New Catholic Encyclopedia, The Canon)

As I said, the Roman Church added these books to their Bible at the Council of Trent.

That is true. St. Jerome had a bit of a rebellious spirit in him. And he was very close to his Jewish buddies who convinced him that the deuterocanonicals were not inspired Scripture.

But in the end, did St. Jerome include the deuterocanonicals in his Bible or not?

Why yes, yes he did. Why? Because he accepted the authority of the Catholic Church.

Here is what St. Jerome himself had to say about the matter:
"What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are won't to raise against the story of Susanna, the Son of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume (ie. Canon), proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. For I wasn't relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they [the Jews] are won't to make against us" (Against Rufinus 11:33 [A.D. 402]).
5 Myths about 7 Books (http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0120.html)

So, there you have it. It is true that St. Jerome at one time did reject the canonical status of the deuterocanonicals. But he did so because he was misled by his Jewish friends. But the Church set him straight. And being a true Saint, he accepted the authority of the Pillar of Truth.

Sincerely,

De Maria

De Maria

Jul 26, 2008, 10:14 PM

heh heh heh - so you refuse to even accept from Roman catholic sources say:D . If you reject what is known historical fact, acknowledged by both Catholic and non-Catholic sources, then there is really no room to discuss the issue with you.

I believe you've misunderstood what that Catholic source said. Either that or you deliberately misrepresented what that Catholic source said.

Its hard for me to believe that a Catholic source worth its weight does not know that the Latin Vulgate produced by SAINT Jerome included within its pages the 73 books of the Catholic Canon.

For an intelligent discussion to take place, it is important that you be willing to acknowledge historic facts.

It is also important that you not pick which facts you want to acknowledge.

You seem very enthusiastic in acknowledging that St. Jerome once rejected the seven books.

But a bit less enthusiastic in acknowledging the equally historical fact that he ended up accepting all seven, including them in his Latin Vulgate and defending their canonicity in his later years.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Tj3

Jul 26, 2008, 10:14 PM

Twisiting my words doesn't add to your credibility TJ.

I twisted nothing. You admitted that you saw it before. I can only then assume that you are denying what Cardinal Newman wrote and published - is that correct? The book is readily available, and once again acknowledged by both Catholic and non-Catholic sources.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We are told in various ways by Eusebius that Constantine, in order to recommend the new religion to the heathen, transferred into it the outward ornaments to which they had been accustomed in their own. It is not necessary to go into a subject which the diligence of Protestant writers has made familiar to most of us. The use of temples, and those dedicated to the particular saints, and ornamented on occasion with branches of trees, incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness, holy water, asylums, holy days and seasons, use of calendars, processions, blessings on the fields, sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure, the ring in marriage, turning to the East, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant and the Kyrie Eleison are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by adoption into the Church.
(Source: An Essay On The Development Of Christian Doctrine)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

De Maria

Jul 26, 2008, 10:23 PM

I twisted nothing. You admitted that you saw it before. I can only then assume that you are denying what Cardinal Newman wrote and published - is that correct? the book is readily available, and once again acknowledged by both Catholic and non-Catholic sources.

Not at all. I am simply stating that you have misunderstood what he wrote. Either that or you are twisting the meaning of his words, something which you have been prone to do in our discussions. I can point to several occasions where you have twisted the meaning of my words.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We are told in various ways by Eusebius that Constantine, in order to recommend the new religion to the heathen, transferred into it the outward ornaments to which they had been accustomed in their own. It is not necessary to go into a subject which the diligence of Protestant writers has made familiar to most of us. The use of temples, and those dedicated to the particular saints, and ornamented on occasion with branches of trees, incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness, holy water, asylums, holy days and seasons, use of calendars, processions, blessings on the fields, sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure, the ring in marriage, turning to the East, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant and the Kyrie Eleison are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by adoption into the Church.
(Source: An Essay On The Development Of Christian Doctrine)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/QUOTE]

I don't see where he says that Constantine started the new religion.

Please show me where he says that?

Sincerely,

De Maria

Tj3

Jul 26, 2008, 10:23 PM

I believe you've misunderstood what that Catholic source said. Either that or you deliberately misrepresented what that Catholic source said.

I know that this must be rough on you - finding out that what you have been taught is not true, but before making false accusations, why not check it out for yourself. BTW, I have a great book written by a Catholic scholar on the Catholic decisions regarding the canon and the addition of the 7 books.

Its hard for me to believe that a Catholic source worth its weight does not know that the Latin Vulgate produced by SAINT Jerome included within its pages the 73 books of the Catholic Canon.

Maybe once again you are mixing up the inclusion of reference material with your personal assumption that inclusion means that it was accepted as canonical. Check out the facts for yourself, but be prepared for some discomfort. If you are not prepared to be challenged, you may wish to avoid checking things out. It may be too much of a shock to your system!

BTW, perhaps you failed to note that the Catholic Encyclopedia did not stop with Jerome, but traced the events right through to the Council of Trent when the decision to add the books was made.

Tj3

Jul 26, 2008, 10:26 PM

Not at all. I am simply stating that you have misunderstood what he wrote. Either that or you are twisting the meaning of his words, something which you have been prone to do in our discussions. I can point to several occasions where you have twisted the meaning of my words.

I know that it is rough on you to have anon-Catholic showing you things from Catholic sources that you did not know exist, but that is no reason to make false accusations.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We are told in various ways by Eusebius that Constantine, in order to recommend the new religion to the heathen, transferred into it the outward ornaments to which they had been accustomed in their own. It is not necessary to go into a subject which the diligence of Protestant writers has made familiar to most of us. The use of temples, and those dedicated to the particular saints, and ornamented on occasion with branches of trees, incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness, holy water, asylums, holy days and seasons, use of calendars, processions, blessings on the fields, sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure, the ring in marriage, turning to the East, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant and the Kyrie Eleison are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by adoption into the Church.
(Source: An Essay On The Development Of Christian Doctrine)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't see where he says that Constantine started the new religion.

I highlighted for you to make it easy for you to read!

De Maria

Jul 26, 2008, 11:07 PM

I know that it is rough on you to have anon-Catholic showing you things from Catholic sources that you did not know exist, but that is no reason to make false accusations.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We are told in various ways by Eusebius that Constantine, in order to recommend the new religion to the heathen, transferred into it the outward ornaments to which they had been accustomed in their own. It is not necessary to go into a subject which the diligence of Protestant writers has made familiar to most of us. The use of temples, and those dedicated to the particular saints, and ornamented on occasion with branches of trees, incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness, holy water, asylums, holy days and seasons, use of calendars, processions, blessings on the fields, sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure, the ring in marriage, turning to the East, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant and the Kyrie Eleison are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by adoption into the Church.
(Source: An Essay On The Development Of Christian Doctrine)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I highlighted for you to make it easy for you to read!

You highlighted the words "new religion". That doesn't say that St. Constantine created a new religion but that he recommended it.

In order to recommend the new religion to the heathen,

So please, try again.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Tj3

Jul 27, 2008, 08:56 AM

You highlighted the words "new religion". That doesn't say that St. Constantine created a new religion but that he recommended it.

in order to recommend the new religion to the heathen,

So please, try again.

It was a new religion - that is all that is necessary. That in context with the rest of the passage, as we as the historical record makes it clear.

I don't need to try again.

De Maria

Jul 27, 2008, 02:34 PM

It was a new religion - that is all that is necessary. That in context with the rest of the passage, as we as the historical record makes it clear.

I don't need to try again.

You do if you want to be accurate. But if you simply want to argue and don't care about the truth, then have it your way.

Correct, the Catholic Church was a new religion IN ROME. But not a religion created by St. Constantine which is what you alleged.

The fact of the matter is, and if you had paid attention in history class you would know, that St. Constantine, the Emperor of Rome, did away with the OLD Roman religion of "Emperor Worship" and recommended the NEW religion of Jesus Christ which was taught by the Catholic Church.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Tj3

Jul 27, 2008, 02:40 PM

You do if you want to be accurate. But if you simply want to argue and don't care about the truth, then have it your way.

Seems to me that is the approach that you are taking since you take a couple of words out of context and then declare your decree as to how the rest of us should understand it, despite what history tells us.

Correct, the Catholic Church was a new religion IN ROME. But not a religion created by St. Constantine which is what you alleged.

I know that this may be more difficult to go through if you have not studied what happened with Constantine and the church in 325, but please at least read the whole statement from your Cardinal about how Constantine brought the pagan practices from the pagan Roman religion into the church.

Did you know that Constantine was the high priest of the pagan Roman religion? Did you know that the high priest was called the "Pontifex Maximus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifex_Maximus)" or "Pontiff" for short? Who do you think holds that office today!

ScottRC

Jul 27, 2008, 05:23 PM

You do if you want to be accurate. But if you simply want to argue and don't care about the truth, then have it your way.
What I find most amusing is the use of Newman... a man who completely rejected the heresy of Protestantism and the foolishness of "sola scriptura".

When Newman believed the Church began is of no real consequence to me... I prefer to look to sources a bit closer to the nascent Church and Nicea for that... and all evidence (Scriptural and historical from the ECF's) show a church that has a sacramental ecclesiology and is centered around a hierarchy of Bishops who have final authority on doctrine.

Peace be with you.

Tj3

Jul 27, 2008, 05:25 PM

What I find most amusing is the use of Newman.... a man who completely rejected the heresy of Protestantism and the foolishness of "sola scriptura".

I am not a protestant, but protestantism comes a whole lot closer to Biblical Christianity than the errors of Roman Catholicism.

De Maria

Jul 27, 2008, 08:52 PM

Seems to me that is the approach that you are taking since you take a couple of words out of context and then declare your decree as to how the rest of us should understand it, despite what history tells us.

I know that this may be more difficult to go through if you have not studied what happened with Constantine and the church in 325, but please at least read the whole statement from your Cardinal about how Constantine brought the pagan practices from the pagan Roman religion into the church.

Did you know that Constantine was the high priest of the pagan Roman religion?

No. St. Constantine was not a priest at all but the monarch of the Roman Empire.

Did you know that the high priest was called the "Pontifex Maximus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifex_Maximus)" or "Pontiff" for short? Who do you think holds that office today!

The Pontiff or Pope, is the Vicar of Christ, successor of Peter who was placed there by Jesus Christ precisely to be the visible head of His Church. Why do you think He named him Rock?

Have you not noticed that in Scripture, there is only one Rock and that Rock is Christ?

So, when Jesus Christ named Simon, Peter, which means Rock, He was signifying that Peter would rule in His stead. This is not something new. God did it before when He sent Moses in His stead to rule over Pharoa:

Exodus 7 1 And the Lord said to Moses: Behold I have appointed thee the God of Pharao: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.

That is why God covered Moses in the cloud:
Exodus 19 9 The Lord said to him: Lo, now will I come to thee in the darkness of a cloud, that the people may hear me speaking to thee, and may believe thee for ever. And Moses told the words of the people to the Lord.

And therefore people came to Moses to know God's will:
Exodus 18 15 And Moses answered him: The people come to me to seek the judgment of God.

And that is precisely the role that the Pope and the Church play for us today.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Tj3

Jul 27, 2008, 08:58 PM

No. St. Constantine was not a priest at all but the monarch of the Roman Empire.

Then you have not studied history of the Roman Empire. I also provided you a link which apparently you chose not to check out. Denying the facts does not change reality.

The Pontiff or Pope, is the Vicar of Christ, successor of Peter who was placed there by Jesus Christ precisely to be the visible head of His Church. Why do you think He named him Rock?

Jesus is the Rock. Scripture says so. Peter was a Stone. That is explicitly stated in scripture - references were given earlier. Maybe you ignored those also.

Have you not noticed that in Scripture, there is only one Rock and that Rock is Christ?

This is what I told you earlier. If you know this, certainly you realize the blasphemy of claiming Peter to the Rock.

sndbay

Jul 28, 2008, 05:23 AM

In the meantime, I find the three prong Catholic Tradition is confirmed in Scripture:

First we are instructed to listen to the Church:

Matthew 18:17
And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
De Maria

The church would be the balance to reflect righteousness in judgement of right and wrong when needed. In other words if a righteous man needed help in showing right from the wrong, he then would ask the church to confirm the righteousness of his action or what is spoken.

Two, we are instructed that the Word of God is passed on orally:
1 Thessalonians 2:13
For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.
De Maria

Amen to that.. Ye receive the Word of God that they teach or minister with and in Truth

As well as by Scripture, and therefore it follows; three, that we keep traditions by word and scripture.
2 Thessalonians 2:15
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

Perhaps we could analyze these Scriptures to see whether or not they contradict the notion that Scripture is the only standard for Christian doctrine.

Sincerely,

De Maria

2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

Traditions = a giving over which is done by word of mouth or in writing, i.e. tradition by instruction, narrative, precept, etc. a) objectively, that which is delivered, the substance of a teaching b) of the body of precepts, esp. ritual, which in the opinion of the later Jews were orally delivered by Moses and orally transmitted in unbroken succession to subsequent generations, which precepts, both illustrating and expanding the written law, as they did were to be obeyed with equal reverence

Whether by word = 1) of speech a) a word, uttered by a living voice, embodies a conception or idea b) what someone has said 1) a word 2) the sayings of God 3) decree, mandate or order 4) of the moral precepts given by God 5) Old Testament prophecy given by the prophets 6) what is declared, a thought, declaration, aphorism, a weighty saying, a dictum, a maxim In John, denotes the essential Word of God, Jesus Christ, the personal wisdom and power in union with God, his minister in creation and government of the universe, the cause of all the world's life both physical and ethical, which for the procurement of man's salvation put on human nature in the person of Jesus the Messiah, the second person in the Godhead, and shone forth conspicuously from His words and deeds.

or our epistle = a letter, Act 15:30, Romans 16:22, 1 Corthinaims 5:9 a letter of commandation,

Note now: go back to, 2 Thessalonians 2:10-14 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

What did they not receive? Truth.. Found where? In Truth = The Word = scripture

Thessalonians 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 2:12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks always to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: 2:14 Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Note now you can take 2:15 and remember or understand what traditions were, what the word spoken is, and what their episle is... 2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

Note: The last verse 2 Thessalonians 2:17 Comfort your hearts, and stablish you in every good word and work.

That is am important verse also. It does not say comfort you heart in traditions 1.stablish where? The Word 2. and what service of work? Servant to God Our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ

None of this say make up traditions to follow, nor does it put traditions that were established, above that of Word of truth. Follow the Light in Christ because it does say God will send those who do not strong delusion

~In Christ

De Maria

Jul 28, 2008, 05:34 PM

The church would be the balance to reflect righteousness in judgement of right and wrong when needed. In other words if a righteous man needed help in showing right from the wrong, he then would ask the church to confirm the righteousness of his action or what is spoken.

Amen to that.. Ye receive the Word of God that they teach or minister with and in Truth

2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

Traditions = a giving over which is done by word of mouth or in writing, i.e. tradition by instruction, narrative, precept, etc. a) objectively, that which is delivered, the substance of a teaching b) of the body of precepts, esp. ritual, which in the opinion of the later Jews were orally delivered by Moses and orally transmitted in unbroken succession to subsequent generations, which precepts, both illustrating and expanding the written law, as they did were to be obeyed with equal reverence

Whether by word = 1) of speech a) a word, uttered by a living voice, embodies a conception or idea b) what someone has said 1) a word 2) the sayings of God 3) decree, mandate or order 4) of the moral precepts given by God 5) Old Testament prophecy given by the prophets 6) what is declared, a thought, declaration, aphorism, a weighty saying, a dictum, a maxim In John, denotes the essential Word of God, Jesus Christ, the personal wisdom and power in union with God, his minister in creation and government of the universe, the cause of all the world's life both physical and ethical, which for the procurement of man's salvation put on human nature in the person of Jesus the Messiah, the second person in the Godhead, and shone forth conspicuously from His words and deeds.

or our epistle = a letter, Act 15:30, Romans 16:22, 1 Corthinaims 5:9 a letter of commandation,

Note now: go back to, 2 Thessalonians 2:10-14 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

What did they not receive? Truth.. Found where? in Truth = The Word = scripture

Thessalonians 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 2:12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: 2:14 Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Note now you can take 2:15 and remember or understand what traditions were, what the word spoken is, and what their episle is... 2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

Note: The last verse 2 Thessalonians 2:17 Comfort your hearts, and stablish you in every good word and work.

That is am important verse also. It does not say comfort you heart in traditions 1.stablish where? The Word 2. and what service of work? Servant to God Our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ

None of this say make up traditions to follow, nor does it put traditions that were established, above that of Word of truth. Follow the Light in Christ because it does say God will send those who do not strong delusion

~In Christ

I agree with everything you've said in this message.

So our difference lies elsewhere.

I am of the impression and I believe I can prove it, that the tradition known as Sola Scriptura is man made and that it contradicts Scripture.

Would you care to show me where this tradition is taught in Scripture?

Sincerely,

De Maria

ScottRC

Aug 11, 2008, 10:56 PM

Of course we know that divine tradition takes precidence over the word of God.
That is incorrect.

"As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."
(CCC #82 cf. DV 9)

Tj3

Aug 12, 2008, 11:53 AM

That is incorrect.

"As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."
(CCC #82 cf. DV 9)

Actually, what we find, and have seen on here, is that no matter what scripture says, the Roman Church interprets it according to their denominational tradition. That gives the denominational tradition precedence over the Word of God (the Bible).

De Maria

Aug 12, 2008, 03:51 PM

Actually, what we find, and have seen on here, is that no matter what scripture says, the Roman Church interprets it according to their denominational tradition.

That is according to Scripture:

2 Thessalonians 2
14 Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.

That gives the denominational tradition precedence over the Word of God (the Bible).

No. That is simply acknowledging what Scripture teaches. That the Traditions of God, either by word or by scripture are both the Word of God:

Acts Of Apostles 13 5 And when they were come to Salamina, they preached the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews. And they had John also in the ministry.

Acts Of Apostles 13 46 Then Paul and Barnabas said boldly: To you it behoved us first to speak the word of God: but because you reject it, and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold we turn to the Gentiles.

2 Timothy 2 9 Wherein I labour even unto bands, as an evildoer; but the word of God is not bound.

Hebrews 13 7 Remember your prelates who have spoken the word of God to you; whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation,

Therefore the traditions do not take precedence one over the other but hand in hand they confirm the truth of one and the other. Oral Tradition confirms Scripture and Scripture confirms Oral Tradition.

Sincerely,

De Maria

De Maria

Aug 12, 2008, 03:53 PM

agrees: What De Maria is assuming that what Paul taught in person was a separate body of truths from what he taught by epistle. This contradicts 2 Thess. 2:5; 2 Peter 1:12...

No actually. The same truths taught in person are the same taught in epistle. If one deviates from the other, there is a problem.

Tj3

Aug 12, 2008, 06:40 PM

That is according to Scripture:
2 Thessalonians 2
14 Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.

Note that what Paul was teaching was given 2 ways - word and epistle. Paul is no longer here to speak to us, so we have the epistle.

De Maria

Aug 13, 2008, 09:44 AM

The acceptance of church traditions must be our final authority, even if it contradicts what is taught in the word of God.

Tradition is the Word of God:

97 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God" (DV 10) in which, as in a mirror, the pilgrim Church contemplates God, the source of all her riches.
CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 97 (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/97.htm)

Sincerely,

De Maria

De Maria

Aug 13, 2008, 09:55 AM

Note that what Paul was teaching was given 2 ways - word and epistle. Paul is no longer here to speak to us, so we have the epistle.

Note that St. Paul did not say, "Tim, I'm sending you this epistle that you may pass it around and let everyone read it".

Nor is he saying, "Tim, I've said everything in my epistles that need be said. No need for you to repeat it."

Instead St. Paul urged St. Timothy to:

2 Tim2 2 And the things which thou hast heard of me by many witnesses, the same commend to faithful men, who shall be fit to teach others also.

3 16 All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, 17 That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.

4 1 I charge thee, before God and Jesus Christ, who shall judge the living and the dead, by his coming, and his kingdom: 2 Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine. 3 For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: 4 And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables. 5 But be thou vigilant, labour in all things, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill thy ministry. Be sober.

In other words, St. Paul is saying, "preach! teach! Remember to use the Bible, it is useful for that purpose, but by all means pass on what you've heard of me and preach, teach, rebuke and correct in all doctrine and wisdom!"

That isn't Sola Scriptura, that is Tradition in word and epistle.

Sincerely,

De Maria

JoeT777

Aug 13, 2008, 10:14 AM

Note that St. Paul did not say, "Tim, I'm sending you this epistle that you may pass it around and let everyone read it".

Nor is he saying, "Tim, I've said everything in my epistles that need be said. No need for you to repeat it."

Instead St. Paul urged St. Timothy to:

2 Tim2 2 And the things which thou hast heard of me by many witnesses, the same commend to faithful men, who shall be fit to teach others also.

3 16 All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, 17 That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.

4 1 I charge thee, before God and Jesus Christ, who shall judge the living and the dead, by his coming, and his kingdom: 2 Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine. 3 For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: 4 And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables. 5 But be thou vigilant, labour in all things, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill thy ministry. Be sober.

In other words, St. Paul is saying, "preach! teach! Remember to use the Bible, it is useful for that purpose, but by all means pass on what you've heard of me and preach, teach, rebuke and correct in all doctrine and wisdom!"

That isn't Sola Scriptura, that is Tradition in word and epistle.

Sincerely,

De Maria

“And if necessary use words” – somebody help me out, who said that, was it St. John of the Cross? It's driving me crazy! I've googeled it every way I know how. I know I read it somewhere!

Frustrated Hillbilly

JoeT

JoeT777

Aug 13, 2008, 10:48 AM

“And if necessary use words” – somebody help me out, who said that, was it St. John of the Cross? It's driving me crazy! I've googeled it every way I know how. I know I read it somewhere!

Frustrated Hillbilly

JoeT

The actual quote: “preach the gospel at all times, and if necessary, use words”. It is normally attributed to St. Francis of Assisi. (1182 – 1226 A.D.)

John of the Cross Juan, de Yepes Alvarez (1542 – 1591 A.D.) close; only missed it by 365 years, that's within 18% of 2008 years of Catholic history. Not bad!

Tj3

Aug 13, 2008, 11:30 AM

In other words, St. Paul is saying, "preach! teach! Remember to use the Bible, it is useful for that purpose, but by all means pass on what you've heard of me and preach, teach, rebuke and correct in all doctrine and wisdom!"

That isn't Sola Scriptura, that is Tradition in word and epistle.

Sincerely,

De Maria

It only violates sola scriptura if you claimk that Paul was preaching something other than sound Bible based doctrine.

Are you calling Paul a heretic?

De Maria

Aug 13, 2008, 11:49 AM

It only violates sola scriptura if you claimk that Paul was preaching something other than sound Bible based doctrine.

Obviously St. Paul isn't teaching the Bible alone since he expects everyone to believe and obey him regardless of what they understand in the Bible.

2 Timothy 4 3 For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears:

Are you calling Paul a heretic?

No. I'm saying that St. Paul is a perfect example of the Magisterium. The teaching Church. He, a Bishop of Christ's Church, teaches the truths of Jesus Christ and teaches others to pass on those teachings BY WORD AND EPISTLE. Not by Scripture alone.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Tj3

Aug 13, 2008, 07:08 PM

Obviously St. Paul isn't teaching the Bible alone since he expects everyone to believe and obey him regardless of what they understand in the Bible.

Not true.

Acts 17:10-12
10 Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.
NKJV

JoeT777

Aug 13, 2008, 07:32 PM

De Maria

Aug 13, 2008, 07:58 PM

De Maria:

So which version of the Bible do you think was in vogue during Paul’s sojourns? Do you think he used the King James Version?

JoeT

Excellent point!! I think it was the Septuagint.

De Maria

Aug 13, 2008, 08:02 PM

Not true.

Acts 17:10-12
10 Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.
NKJV

If this were an example of the Bible alone, why did Paul and Silas first explain the doctrine? Then the Bereans searched for it in the Old Testament. Not the New Testament. That is important. The Bereans were searching the Old Testament Scriptures to confirm what Paul and Silas taught them about Jesus Christ!!

This is an example of oral Tradition, Scripture and the teaching Church.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Tj3

Aug 13, 2008, 08:03 PM

If this were an example of the Bible alone, why did Paul and Silas first explain the doctrine?

References please - what are you referring to here? Vague claims do not cut it.

De Maria

Aug 13, 2008, 08:15 PM

References please - what are you referring to here? Vague claims do not cut it.

We're discussing Acts 17:10 - 12 which you posted.

Acts 17:10-12
10 Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.
NKJV

If this were an example of the Bible alone, why did Paul and Silas first explain the doctrine? Then the Bereans searched for it in the Old Testament. Not the New Testament. That is important. The Bereans were searching the Old Testament Scriptures to confirm what Paul and Silas taught them about Jesus Christ!!

This is an example of oral Tradition, Scripture and the teaching Church.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Tj3

Aug 13, 2008, 08:24 PM

We're discussing Acts 17:10 - 12 which you posted.

Good.

Acts 17:10-12
10 Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.
NKJV

If this were an example of the Bible alone, why did Paul and Silas first explain the doctrine?

Do you see an issue with preaching or explaining Biblical doctrine? I don't - in fact that sola scriptura promotes.

Then the Bereans searched for it in the Old Testament. Not the New Testament. That is important. The Bereans were searching the Old Testament Scriptures to confirm what Paul and Silas taught them about Jesus Christ!!

What? You think that the Old testament does not speak about Jesus? Here is another spot where Paul is speaking about the Old testament.

2 Tim 3:14-16
14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
NKJV

I often use the Old Testament to witness to Jehovah's Witnesses and others about the truth of Jesus Christ and who He is. If you do not know about the wealth of teachings about Jesus and in fact His appearances in the Old Testament, then you need to spend much more time studying the Old testament.

This is an example of oral Tradition, Scripture and the teaching Church.

Two out of three. No man made tradition in this passage.

De Maria

Aug 14, 2008, 12:04 PM

Do you see an issue with preaching or explaining Biblical doctrine? I don't - in fact that sola scriptura promotes.

Illogically in that respect. Because obviously, when one preaches his understanding of the Scriptures he is declaring himself an authority. If there is only one authority, Sola Scriptura, then those Sola Scripturists who claim to believe in the sole authority of Scripture, are contradicting themselves.

What? You think that the Old testament does not speak about Jesus?

It is Catholic doctrine that Jesus Christ is hidden in the Old Testament and revealed in the New. But since you think that the Old Testament is speaking about Jesus Christ explicitly, show me where he is mentioned by name.

Here is another spot where Paul is speaking about the Old testament.

2 Tim 3:14-16
14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
NKJV[quote]

Great. Now show me how one can read the Old Testament alone and learn the Gospels without the interceding of Church teaching.

[quote]I often use the Old Testament to witness to Jehovah's Witnesses and others about the truth of Jesus Christ and who He is. If you do not know about the wealth of teachings about Jesus and in fact His appearances in the Old Testament, then you need to spend much more time studying the Old testament.

Thank you. Exactly the Catholic point. Note how you are teaching the Jehova witnesses where to find references of Jesus Christ in the Old Testament.

Without your help they would not find them.

That very same fact is reflected in this Scripture verse, the Apostles were teaching the Bereans where the Old Testament referred to Jesus Christ. The Bereans would not have found those references otherwise since the Old Testament does not refer to Jesus Christ explicitly.

Therefore, the Catholic Church does not teach Scripture alone, but Tradition, Scripture and Magisterium.

Two out of three. No man made tradition in this passage.

Even if it is two out of three it means that it isn't Scripture alone.

But what you call man made tradition, we call Sacred Tradition. In this case the mandate of Jesus Christ that we should teach what He taught.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Tj3

Aug 14, 2008, 06:41 PM

Illogically in that respect. Because obviously, when one preaches his understanding of the Scriptures he is declaring himself an authority.

That makes no sense. Maybe some of your preachers are so arrogant, but I would not stay in any church for one minute if I saw any preachers preaching anything which was not scriptural, and if the preacher tried to establish himself rather than scripture as the authority. If that is the w3ay it is in your church, get out now.

It is Catholic doctrine that Jesus Christ is hidden in the Old Testament and revealed in the New. But since you think that the Old Testament is speaking about Jesus Christ explicitly, show me where he is mentioned by name.

Saintjoan already did. But even if He were not mentioned by name, He is mentioned explicitly and speaks in the Old Testament. He is not hidden as your denomination's private interpretation says.

Great. Now show me how one can read the Old Testament alone and learn the Gospels without the interceding of Church teaching.

That is a whole other topic. I would suggest that you start a new thread rather than trying to further sidetrack this one. Even if you have not studied the Old testament enough to be aware of it, is it not enough that Paul says that it is there in God's inspired word? Are you saying that the Bible errs?

Thank you. Exactly the Catholic point. Note how you are teaching the Jehova witnesses where to find references of Jesus Christ in the Old Testament.

And I have taught Roman Catholics, too.

sndbay

Aug 15, 2008, 07:12 PM

Good.

I often use the Old Testament to witness to Jehovah's Witnesses and others about the truth of Jesus Christ and who He is. If you do not know about the wealth of teachings about Jesus and in fact His appearances in the Old Testament, then you need to spend much more time studying the Old testament.

Was Jesus teaching scripture on the cross, or was He proclaiming what had been written 1000 year before it happened?

Psalm 22

Matthew 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? That is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Tj3

Aug 15, 2008, 07:14 PM

Was Jesus teaching scripture on the cross, or was He proclaiming what had been written 1000 year before it happened?

Psalm 22

Matthew 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

I would suggest that He was fulfilling prophecy.

De Maria

Aug 24, 2008, 06:10 PM

That makes no sense. Maybe some of your preachers are so arrogant, but I would not stay in any church for one minute if I saw any preachers preaching anything which was not scriptural, and if the preacher tried to establish himself rather than scripture as the authority. If that is the w3ay it is in your church, get out now.

Take the wood out of your eye. You are teaching against Scripture.

saintjoan already did.

No she didn't.

but even if He were not mentioned by name,

You know that He isn't mentioned by name. So why the pretense?

He is mentioned explicitly

If He is not mentioned by name, then He is not mentioned explicitly.

and speaks in the Old Testament. He is not hidden as your denomination's private interpretation says.

Then why didn't all the Jews recognize Him immediately when He arrived?

That is a whole other topic.

No it isn't. You simply want to leave the subject because you know you've been proven wrong.

It is Jesus who gave the key to understanding the Old Testament:

John 5 46 For if you did believe Moses, you would perhaps believe me also; for he wrote of me.

Luke 24 44 And he said to them: These are the words which I spoke to you, while I was yet with you, that all things must needs be fulfilled, which are written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

Therefore, the Jews did not recognize Jesus in the Old Testament until He told them so.

I would suggest that you start a new thread rather than trying to further sidetrack this one.

No. This is precisely what we are talking about. Jesus commanded that the Apostles teach:

Matthew 28 19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

The Catholic Church continues to obey the Traditions which Jesus Christ established. Therefore, it is Church, Sacred Tradition and Scripture. Sola Scriptura is not taught in Scripture.

Even if you have not studied the Old testament enough to be aware of it, is it not enough that Paul says that it is there in God's inspired word?

What are you talking about now. Obviously you have changed the subject because you don't want to admit you are wrong.

Are you saying that the Bible errs?

Nope. As I've said over and over. It is your interpretation of the Bible which is wrong.

And I have taught Roman Catholics, too.

If you taught them what you proclaimed above, you taught them error.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Tj3

Aug 24, 2008, 08:17 PM

Take the wood out of your eye. You are teaching against Scripture.

I am quoting scripture, not following denominational teachings of men.

No she didn't.

You know that He isn't mentioned by name. So why the pretense?

If He is not mentioned by name, then He is not mentioned explicitly.

Then why didn't all the Jews recognize Him immediately when He arrived?

No it isn't. You simply want to leave the subject because you know you've been proven wrong.

Just the same old, same old denials.

It is Jesus who gave the key to understanding the Old Testament:

John 5 46 For if you did believe Moses, you would perhaps believe me also; for he wrote of me.

Luke 24 44 And he said to them: These are the words which I spoke to you, while I was yet with you, that all things must needs be fulfilled, which are written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

Therefore, the Jews did not recognize Jesus in the Old Testament until He told them so.

Jesus - not your denomination. Jesus is God and He sent the Holy Spirit, not your denomination.

No. This is precisely what we are talking about. Jesus commanded that the Apostles teach:

No one is arguing against teaching. I teach the Bible also.

The Catholic Church continues to obey the Traditions which Jesus Christ established.

You keep saying this but refuse to show where Jesus "commanded tradition". Is the same Jesus that left your church and appointed someone else in his place because he had to leave?

My Jesus is omnipotent and omnipresent and never left. I'd be happy to introduce you.

De Maria

Aug 24, 2008, 08:33 PM

I am quoting scripture, not following denominational teachings of men.

You are quoting Scripture and then attributing erroneous explanations to the quotes.

Just the same old, same old denials.

I'm pretty thorough about explaining my denials. Just as I'm doing in this message.

Jesus - not your denomination. Jesus is God and He sent the Holy Spirit, not your denomination.

Jesus established the Catholic Church and He sent her to teach.

No one is arguing against teaching. I teach the Bible also.

Then you have just proved that Scripture alone is a false teaching. If you need to teach the Bible, then the Bible is not alone.

You keep saying this but refuse to show where Jesus "commanded tradition".

Right here:
Matthew 28 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

Matthew 28 19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

1 Corinthians 11 23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread. 24 And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me. 25 In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.

Is the same Jesus that left your church

Jesus did not leave the Church. He is still the Head.

and appointed someone else in his place because he had to leave?

But He did appoint someone to rule in His place.

My Jesus is omnipotent and omnipresent and never left. I'd be happy to introduce you.

If you truly knew Jesus, you would embrace His Church.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Tj3

Aug 24, 2008, 08:47 PM

You are quoting Scripture and then attributing erroneous explanations to the quotes.

If that were true, you'd be able to go to the context and refute what I said - but you can't.

Jesus established the Catholic Church and He sent her to teach.

Why would Jesus come to earth in the 1st century and start a denomination in the 4th?

Then you have just proved that Scripture alone is a false teaching. If you need to teach the Bible, then the Bible is not alone.

I never said that I believed in scripture alone. In fact I have said the opposite many times. I believe in sola scriptura. If you think that they are the same thing, then I would suggest that you do some reading on the topic before trying to engage those knowledgeable in it.

And if you think that teaching the Bible is somehow contrary to sola scriptura, then I don't believe that you have even gottne to ground level in understanding sola scriptura.

Jesus did not leave the Church. He is still the Head.

He did not leave my church, but you said that left someone else in charge of yours. It must be a different Jesus, or for someone reason Jesus left your church and stayed at mine. If I were you, I'd be concerned ab out that.

But He did appoint someone to rule in His place.

Jesus stayed to rule at my church.

Duid you church say something that made Him want to leave? :D

De Maria

Aug 25, 2008, 10:00 AM

If that were true, you'd be able to go to the context and refute what I said - but you can't.

I've done so every time.

Why would Jesus come to earth in the 1st century and start a denomination in the 4th?

That is your twisting of the facts. Jesus established His Church in the 1st Century.

Matthew 16 18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

I never said that I believed in scripture alone. In fact I have said the opposite many times. I believe in sola scriptura.

Sola Scriptura means Scripture alone. The word "Sola" is Latin for "alone". The word "Scriptura" is Latin for Scripture.

If you think that they are the same thing, then I would suggest that you do some reading on the topic before trying to engage those knowledgeable in it.

They do mean the same thing:

Sola scriptura - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, "by scripture alone") Is the assertion that the Bible as God's written word is self-authenticating, clear (perspicuous) to ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura

Scripture Catholic - SCRIPTURE ALONE ("SOLA SCRIPTURA")
Scripture Catholic.com provides citations regarding SCRIPTURE ALONE - SOLA SCRIPTURA.
www.scripturecatholic.com/scripture_alone.html

Soli Deo Gloria! For the Glory of God Alone - the Five Solas of...
Sola Scriptura: The Scripture Alone is the Standard. The doctrine that the Bible alone is the ultimate authority was the "Formal Principle" of the ...
Soli Deo Gloria! For the Glory of God Alone - the Five Solas of the Reformation (http://www.aracnet.com/~wing/5solas.htm)

It would seem you don't know what Sola Scriptura means. Above we have a representative sample. A neutral site, Wikipedia, a Catholic site, and a Reformed site all define Sola Scriptura as Scripture alone.

And if you think that teaching the Bible is somehow contrary to sola scriptura, then I don't believe that you have even gottne to ground level in understanding sola scriptura.

In essence then, you have proved the illogical aspect of Sola Scriptura. If you have the authority to teach Scripture, then Scripture is not alone.

If you believe the Bible teaches that you must teach Scripture, then you have proven that the Bible does not teach Scripture alone, but Scripture and Teaching. Which is exactly what the Catholic Church teaches. That is why She accepts the Magisterial mission. Magisterium is Latin for "Teacher".

He did not leave my church, but you said that left someone else in charge of yours.

Yes. He is our Shepherd. But the Shepherd left Peter to "feed" His sheep:

John 21 17 He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep.

It must be a different Jesus, or for someone reason Jesus left your church and stayed at mine. If I were you, I'd be concerned ab out that.

Are you sure? Because Jesus left us His peace when He left:

John 14 26 But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you. 27 Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, do I give unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, nor let it be afraid. 28 You have heard that I said to you: I go away, and I come unto you.

And He told us that if He didn't leave us we would not receive the Holy Spirit:

John 16 7 But I tell you the truth: it is expedient to you that I go: for if I go not, the Paraclete will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.

The Paraclete is the Holy Spirit.

Jesus stayed to rule at my church.

Then, according to Scripture, you haven't received the Holy Spirit.

Duid you church say something that made Him want to leave? :D

Lol!! Very funny. ;)

Actually, it is in our Church where He remains, but in Sacramental fashion. His Real Presence in the guise of Bread and Wine. In the Body of Christ His Church and in the Word of God Tradition and Scripture.

Sincerely,

De Maria

sndbay

Aug 25, 2008, 10:55 AM

Ruler Over Heaven or Earth

Colossians 1:16 For by Him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And He is before all things, and by him all things consist.

Colossians 1:18-19 And He is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things He might have the preeminence .For it pleased [The Father] that in Him should all fulness dwell And, having made peace through the blood of His cross, by Him to reconcile all things unto Himself; by Him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven

JoeT777

Aug 25, 2008, 11:52 AM

Tj3

Aug 25, 2008, 12:00 PM

I've done so every time.

No, usually even in those cases where you use scripture, you just repeat the party line within dealing with the points raised, such as the same old, same old line claiming that Matthew 16 says that Peter was made pope. We cvould refute this 100 times, and you will come back with the same old lines.

Like this one:

That is your twisting of the facts. Jesus established His Church in the 1st Century.

And then you will use Matthew 16 to supposedly justify the claim,

Matthew 16 18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Ignoring the fact that the word used for Peter is stone, and ignoring the context and the grammar. We been through this many time.

Sola Scriptura means Scripture alone. The word "Sola" is Latin for "alone". The word "Scriptura" is Latin for Scripture.

Sola Scriptura refers to scriptura is the sole source of doctrine. I've been through this where Romans Catholics claim that it means that we cannot have preaching, we cannot have other Christian books, and so on and so forth.

Using alternate terminology like that is a great way for you to confuse the issue, but not any way to help bring understanding.

In essence then, you have proved the illogical aspect of Sola Scriptura. If you have the authority to teach Scripture, then Scripture is not alone.

See - this is the type of ridiculous claims that people make by use of the term "scripture alone".

Yes. He is our Shepherd. But the Shepherd left Peter to "feed" His sheep:

The same command was made to all Christians. Peter was not unique. I showed you this before from scripture.

Are you sure? Because Jesus left us His peace when He left:

Are you denying His omnipresence? Because though He ascended bodily so that He could send the Holy Spirit to indwell us, He reamins present with us. At least with my church!

Actually, it is in our Church where He remains, but in Sacramental fashion. His Real Presence in the guise of Bread and Wine.

But He said in John 6 that those who believed that they needed to eat real flesh were the ones who betrayed Him.

Tj3

Aug 25, 2008, 12:01 PM

I thought you said that Christ was the “foundation”? If he’s the head, which I agree with, then who might be the foundation – Peter?

Scripture says that Christ is both the head and the foundation.

JoeT777

Aug 25, 2008, 12:34 PM

Scripture says that Christ is both the head and the foundation.

Such is the way all buildings are built, the name of the founder (the authority) is the name of the building and the foundation is that which supports the founder’s wishes. Thus we have Christ the “founder” (the authority) designating Peter to the task of supporting the founder’s Church; primarily because of his faith was bequeathed by God.

The founder is Christ, the foundation is Peter as designated by Christ the founder.

Seems straight forward to me; as you read scripture the sense is Christ is the founder, and Peter is the foundation. I could agree to a statement like that, as I’m sure you would.

JoeT

De Maria

Aug 25, 2008, 12:39 PM

sndbay

Aug 25, 2008, 01:37 PM

I thought you said that Christ was the “foundation”? If he's the head, which I agree with, then who might be the foundation – Peter?

He is all things.

Christ is the Foundation and upon it was the fellowship built by the apostles and prophets, with Christ as the corner stone.

1 Corinthains 3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ

Eph 2:19- 20 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner [stone]; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

Note here also the building fitly framed [Our Father's Truth the Pillar] together unto a Temple [which is Christ] which is build for Our Father throught The Spirit.

And these scripture reinerate that fact again.
Colossians 1:16 For by Him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And He is before all things, and by Him all things consist.

Colossians 1:18-19 And He is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things He might have the preeminence .For it pleased [The Father] that in Him should all fulness dwell And, having made peace through the blood of His cross, by Him to reconcile all things unto Himself; by Him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven

Our Father the Pillar of Truth

Numbers 14:14 And they will tell [it] to the inhabitants of this land: [for] they have heard that thou LORD [art] among this people, that thou LORD art seen face to face, and [that] thy cloud standeth over them, and [that] thou goest before them, by day time in a pillar of a cloud, and in a pillar of fire by night.
Neh 9:12 Moreover thou leddest them in the day by a cloudy pillar; and in the night by a pillar of fire, to give them light in the way wherein they should go.

This is a continueous circle of the Trinity that leads everything to "ONE"

There is scripture to prove who is the Light.. Who is the Truth... Who is the Blood... Who is the Water.. Who is the Temple... Who is the Spirit... Who is the Pillar... Who is the Word It goes on and on.. Father, Son, and Holy Ghost = "ONE"

People try to think out of pride rather then of the power and glory of Our Father in Heaven.

We are servants of righteousness if we believe and are baptized. That's it and hold stedfast to that Truth [ Our Father]. Everyone should give Our Father "all" above all else. It's the 1st commandment. Your choice of Free Will. All Honor and Glory to the Trinity of ONE

JoeT777

Aug 25, 2008, 01:48 PM

He is all things.

Christ is the Foundation and upon it was the fellowship built by the apostles and prophets, with Christ as the corner stone

Sorry Sndbay, I picked this argument under the wrong thread. I don't want to walk over De Maria. We'll take this up later.

Sorry to you too De Maria, shouldn't have done it

JoeT

sndbay

Aug 25, 2008, 02:11 PM

Sorry Sndbay, I pick this argument under the wrong thread. I don’t want to walk over De Maria. We’ll take this up later.

Sorry to you too De Maria, shouldn't have done it

JoeT

Not a problem Joe.. The post I made was to benefit and not cause a problem..

I thought the previous posts were gearing toward dominion and exercising lordship.

May the reader find it helpful.

Tj3

Aug 25, 2008, 07:26 PM

Such is the way all buildings are built, the name of the founder (the authority) is the name of the building and the foundation is that which supports the founder’s wishes.

I note how you altered what scripture says. It does not say that Jesus' name is on the head and foundation - it says that He IS the head and foundation.

That alone invalidates your claim that Peter was designated.

De Maria

Aug 25, 2008, 07:48 PM

No, usually even in those cases where you use scripture, you just repeat the party line within dealing with the points raised, such as the same old, same old line claiming that Matthew 16 says that Peter was made pope.

The truth doesn't change.

We cvould refute this 100 times, and you will come back with the same old lines.

I've used many arguments to refute your attempts at refutation.

Ignoring the fact that the word used for Peter is stone,

I'm glad you acknowledge that the word used for Peter is stone. And there is such a thing as a foundation stone. Which means that stones aren't always small.

and ignoring the context and the grammar. We been through this many time.

Not true. I have highlighted over and over that Jesus is talking to Simon. That Jesus is giving Simon a name that previously only referred to God. I have highlighted that this is not something that is new. God previously appointed Moses as His representative and called Moses, God and Aaron his prophet.

Sola Scriptura refers to scriptura is the sole source of doctrine.

Exactly. But Scripture doesn't say that Scripture is the sole source of doctrine. So yours is a self defeating statement.

Here it is logically stated:

1. Sola Scriptura says that Scripture is the sole source of doctrine.
2. Scripture does not say that Scripture is the sole source of doctrine.
3. Therefore, Sola Scriptura is a false doctrine.

Here it is stated a different way:

1. Sola Scriptura says that Scripture is the sole source of doctrine.
2. Sola Scriptura is a doctrine.
3. Sola Scriptura is not found in Scripture.
4. Therefore, Sola Scriptura is not a true doctrine and...
5. Scripture is not the sole source of doctrine.

I've been through this where Romans Catholics claim that it means that we cannot have preaching, we cannot have other Christian books, and so on and so forth.

Many people claiming to be Catholic say many different things. Remember St. Joan? Show me where Catholic doctrine says we can't have preaching.

Using alternate terminology like that is a great way for you to confuse the issue, but not any way to help bring understanding.

Oh that is rich!! Didn't you know that Sola Scriptura was a Latin phrase? This is not alternate terminology. This is the actual terminology. You might want to study what Luther taught. After all, if you claim to believe his doctrine, you should understand what it means.

See - this is the type of ridiculous claims that people make by use of the term "scripture alone".

Obviously you don't even submit to the authority of the man who invented the term and defined the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Again that shows how you are your own authority and your own source of doctrine.

The same command was made to all Christians. Peter was not unique. I showed you this before from scripture.

But in this verse, Jesus appointed Peter directly to "feed His sheep."

Are you denying His omnipresence? Because though He ascended bodily so that He could send the Holy Spirit to indwell us, He reamins present with us. At least with my church!

Does He preach in your church? Because although He remains present with us, He appointed Church leaders to preach His Word. But if you are saying that Jesus gets up before your congregation and preaches, then you are truly blessed.

But He said in John 6 that those who believed that they needed to eat real flesh were the ones who betrayed Him.

No He didn't. That is you twisting the Scripture.

He said and I quote:
John 6 52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Tj3

Aug 25, 2008, 09:46 PM

The truth doesn't change.

Truth does not change, and no matter how many times you try to make it change, it does not.

I'm glad you acknowledge that the word used for Peter is stone. And there is such a thing as a foundation stone. Which means that stones aren't always small.

True, but it is still a stone. And scripture tells us that Jesus is also the foundation stone (cornerstone):

Mark 12:10
10 Have you not read this Scripture:
'The stone which the builders rejected
Has become the chief cornerstone.
NKJV

That is not Peter either.

Not true. I have highlighted over and over that Jesus is talking to Simon. That Jesus is giving Simon a name that previously only referred to God. I have highlighted that this is not something that is new. God previously appointed Moses as His representative and called Moses, God and Aaron his prophet.

Your claim, but once again it ignores what scripture says, the Greek meanings of the words and the grammar. Repeating it over and over ignoring these points does not help.

Exactly. But Scripture doesn't say that Scripture is the sole source of doctrine. So yours is a self defeating statement.

Why do you defy the scriptural command by going beyond what is written? Sola scriptura is indeed in scripture, but your biggest problem is not sola scriptura, but the complete lack of validation for going beyond God's word in establishing doctrine.

Show me where Catholic doctrine says we can't have preaching.

Strawman argument - who said that we cannot have preaching?

Oh that is rich!! Didn't you know that Sola Scriptura was a Latin phrase? This is not alternate terminology. This is the actual terminology. You might want to study what Luther taught. After all, if you claim to believe his doctrine, you should understand what it means.

I do not follow Luther. I follow God. This is a key reason for our disagreement - you look to the words of men and expect me to as well. I look to the words of God, and no matter how much you would like to control what I think and believe, you cannot.

Obviously you don't even submit to the authority of the man who invented the term and defined the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

I submit to the authority of God.

But in this verse, Jesus appointed Peter directly to "feed His sheep."

And appointed others elsewhere. Why do you point out one scripture and ignore the rest?

Does He preach in your church? Because although He remains present with us, He appointed Church leaders to preach His Word. But if you are saying that Jesus gets up before your congregation and preaches, then you are truly blessed.

I feel sorry for you if God does not speak to you.

No He didn't. That is you twisting the Scripture.

He said it in those words - do I have to repeat the quote to you once again?

sndbay

Aug 26, 2008, 05:26 AM

The truth doesn't change.

De Maria

Truth Does Not Change!

Our Father [is] The Spirit of Truth --------> Who is Truth ? Our Father

John 16:13 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.

Deu 32:4 He is the Rock, His work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of Truth and without iniquity, just and right is He.

Exd 34:6 And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in Goodness and Truth,

Children of the Devil

1 John 2:4 he that saith, I know Him, and keepeth [not] His commandments, is a liar, and the Truth is not in him.

John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the Truth, because there is no Truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

De Maria

Aug 26, 2008, 07:21 AM

Truth does not change, and no matter how many times you try to make it change, it does not.

Again, I have to wonder whether you understand English? Or why do you pretend that I try to make it change. It is you who are accusing me of saying the same thing over and over.

True, but it is still a stone. And scripture tells us that Jesus is also the foundation stone (cornerstone):

And it is Jesus who calls Peter a stone and says that stone He will build His Church. So the only way you can deny it is by eliminating Matt 16:18 from the Bible.

Mark 12:10
10 Have you not read this Scripture:
'The stone which the builders rejected
Has become the chief cornerstone.
NKJV

That is not Peter either.

That doesn't change the fact that JESUS SAID that He would build His Church on Peter. I know you don't like that idea but it is Scripture and I believe the Word of God. Not your interpretation.

Your claim, but once again it ignores what scripture says, the Greek meanings of the words and the grammar. Repeating it over and over ignoring these points does not help.

Are you Greek? Do you speak the Greek language?

Here is an explanation by a Greek expert:

Petros is simply the masculine form of the feminine Greek noun petra. Like Spanish and French, Greek nouns have gender. When the female noun petra, large rock, was used as Simon's name, it was rendered in the masculine form as petros. Otherwise, calling him Petra would have been like calling him Michelle instead of Michael.

Protestant Greek scholars like D.A. Carson and Joseph Thayer admit there is no distinction in meaning between petros and petra in the Koine Greek of the New Testament. [Joseph H. Thayer, Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1996), 507; D.A. Carson, "Matthew," in Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., The Expositor's Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), vol. 8, 368.] Petra does mean 'rock', usually a 'large rock.' That is exactly what petros means. The Greek word for 'pebble' or 'small stone' is lithos, not petros, used numerous times in the Bible (Mt. 4:6, 7:9, 21:42, by my quick count, 32 times in the New Testament).
An Exchange on Peter, the Papacy and Succession (http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/peter.html)

Essentially, yours is an "anything but Peter" argument. But your argument goes against the very Scriptures which you claim to love.

Why do you defy the scriptural command by going beyond what is written?

Where is that command? Lets examine it and see if it means what you claim it means.

Sola scriptura is indeed in scripture

If it were, you would have produced the verse. But you haven't. You just "interpret" it into Scripture. But your interpretation contradicts several other passages:

2 Thessalonians 2 14 Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.

Romans 12 6 And having different gifts, according to the grace that is given us, either prophecy, to be used according to the rule of faith; 7 Or ministry, in ministering; or he that teacheth, in doctrine; 8 He that exhorteth, in exhorting; he that giveth, with simplicity; he that ruleth, with carefulness; ....

Romans 16 17 Now I beseech you, brethren, to mark them who make dissensions and offences contrary to the doctrine which you have learned, and avoid them.

2 Timothy 1 13 Hold the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me in faith, and in the love which is in Christ Jesus.

, but your biggest problem is not sola scriptura, but the complete lack of validation for going beyond God's word in establishing doctrine.

It is actually you going beyond God's word. As I've shown, Sola Scriptura contradicts Scripture, is not taught in Scripture and is therefore a false doctrine of men.

Strawman argument - who said that we cannot have preaching?

You did. As I've shown. Scripture ALONE means that you don't need to interfere by preaching the word of God. You claim that Scripture is perfectly clear and needs no interpretation. Yet you keep preaching. Obviously, you are contradicting by your actions what you claim for Scripture.

I do not follow Luther.

Thanks for admitting that you are really your own authority. Luther is the author of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. You follow his doctrine but claim not to follow his teaching. Another contradiction in your beliefs.

I follow God.

I don't deny that you sincerely want to follow God. But you have essentially replaced your own opinions for the Commandments of God.

This is a key reason for our disagreement - you look to the words of men and expect me to as well. I look to the words of God, and no matter how much you would like to control what I think and believe, you cannot.

I don't deny that I have faith in the men which God appointed with authority over my soul:
Hebrews 13 17 Obey your prelates, and be subject to them. For they watch as being to render an account of your souls; that they may do this with joy, and not with grief. For this is not expedient for you.

And I agree that our difference has to do with authority. I recognize the authority of the Church which Jesus placed here to teach us His truths:

Matthew 28 19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

In contrast you show nothing but disdain for the teaching of God's Church.

I submit to the authority of God.

You have replaced God with your own authority.

And appointed others elsewhere. Why do you point out one scripture and ignore the rest?

Why do you point to no Scriptures but only to your opinions?

I feel sorry for you if God does not speak to you.

God speaks to me through His Church. Are you saying that God speaks to you directly as He did to Moses?

He said it in those words - do I have to repeat the quote to you once again?

Please do, that way I can again highlight how you twisted it.

Sincerely,

De Maria

De Maria

Aug 26, 2008, 07:25 AM

Truth Does Not Change!

Our Father [is] The Spirit of Truth --------> Who is Truth ? Our Father

John 16:13 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.

Deu 32:4 He is the Rock, His work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of Truth and without iniquity, just and right is He.

Exd 34:6 And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in Goodness and Truth,

Children of the Devil

1 John 2:4 he that saith, I know Him, and keepeth [not] His commandments, is a liar, and the Truth is not in him.

John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the Truth, because there is no Truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

Are you saying that Jesus is not the truth:
John 14 6 Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me.

Or why did you say simply:

Who is Truth ? Our Father

Sincerely,

De Maria

Tj3

Aug 26, 2008, 05:26 PM

Again, I have to wonder whether you understand English?

Sigh! Hardly worth talking to you when your best defense is abuse.

That doesn't change the fact that JESUS SAID that He would build His Church on Peter.

Where? You claim it, but scripture doesn't say it.

Here is an explanation by a Greek expert:

Apparently a Greek expert without a name :D Or maybe one that doesn't want his name to be known!

Where is that command? Lets examine it and see if it means what you claim it means.

1 Cor 4:6. But I am sure that you will priovately interpret it to say something else or redefine the word as you have done for preaching and teaching!

2 Thessalonians 2 14 Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.

Note that that tradition was written down - where? Scripture. And since we no longer have Apostles, they are no longer speaking it to us, so we have one standard of doctrine.

The rest of your same old, same old are just time wasters. Please come up with some new material from time to time.

De Maria

Aug 26, 2008, 06:08 PM

Sigh! Hardly worth talking to you when your best defense is abuse.

Just an observation.

Where? You claim it, but scripture doesn't say it.

Sure does:

Matthew 16 18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Apparently a Greek expert without a name :D Or maybe one that doesn't want his name to be known!

I don't know why you call it abuse. Its an observation of a trait which you display overtly. Either you don't understand English or you are intentionally twisting the meaning of my words or you are ignoring my messages. Here, I'll highlight the name. Please go to the message and you'll see the name there as well:

Protestant Greek scholars like D.A. Carson and Joseph Thayer admit there is no distinction in meaning between petros and petra in the Koine Greek of the New Testament.

1 Cor 4:6. But I am sure that you will priovately interpret it to say something else or redefine the word as you have done for preaching and teaching!

Lol!!

No. I'll read it in the Spirit in which it was written and in context:

1 Cor 4 5 Therefore judge not before the time; until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts; and then shall every man have praise from God. 6 But these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollo, for your sakes; that in us you may learn, that one be not puffed up against the other for another, above that which is written. 7 For who distinguisheth thee? Or what hast thou that thou hast not received? And if thou hast received, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?

According to you, what do you think this means?

Note that that tradition was written down - where? Scripture. And since we no longer have Apostles, they are no longer speaking it to us, so we have one standard of doctrine.

Was tradition already written down when St. Paul said:
2 Timothy 2 2 And the things which thou hast heard of me by many witnesses, the same commend to faithful men, who shall be fit to teach others also.

Was tradition already written down when St. Paul said:
2 Thessalonians 2 14 Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.

The rest of your same old, same old

As I said, the truth doesn't change, no matter how much you would like it to change.

are just time wasters. Please come up with some new material from time to time.

I can't. My material is based upon the Word of God. Only innovators like yourself can come up with new material.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Tj3

Aug 26, 2008, 09:09 PM

Just an observation.

Ah, so to you abuse is okay if you define it as "just an observation".

Sure does:

Matthew 16 18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

You claim it does, but it neither says what you claim if you actually read that verse in context in English, and especially not if you read in the original Greek language.

I don't know why you call it abuse. Its an observation of a trait which you display overtly. Either you don't understand English or you are intentionally twisting the meaning of my words or you are ignoring my messages. Here, I'll highlight the name. Please go to the message and you'll see the name there as well:

Protestant Greek scholars like D.A. Carson and Joseph Thayer admit there is no distinction in meaning between petros and petra in the Koine Greek of the New Testament.

I read the page - I see unsubstantiated claims by an unnamed author who you claim to be a Greek expert. I go by what recognized Greek experts say.

1 Cor 4 5 Therefore judge not before the time; until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts; and then shall every man have praise from God. 6 But these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollo, for your sakes; that in us you may learn, that one be not puffed up against the other for another, above that which is written. 7 For who distinguisheth thee? Or what hast thou that thou hast not received? And if thou hast received, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?

According to you, what do you think this means?

I let scripture speak for itself, but I am sure that you have another private interpretation to offer.

Was tradition already written down when St. Paul said:
2 Timothy 2 2 And the things which thou hast heard of me by many witnesses, the same commend to faithful men, who shall be fit to teach others also.

You keep using these passages which have nothing to do with tradition.

Was tradition already written down when St. Paul said:
2 Thessalonians 2 14 Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.

Clearly Paul was speaking of what was written down and in oral form. And let me ask you, is Paul still telling us this orally, or do we have it in written form?

And where does Paul say that the oral differs from the written?

I can't. My material is based upon the Word of God.

You're funny

De Maria

Aug 26, 2008, 09:32 PM

Ah, so to you abuse is okay if you define it as "just an observation".

Well, when the message has the names of the Protestant Greek Scholars BOLDED. Its hard to take you seriously when you say that no name was mentioned.

And when you claim that I haven't provided verses to support my contention, and the verses are staring you in the face in the OP, its hard to believe that you are debating in good faith.

When you use the name of a fake Catholic (a Protestant passing herself off as a Catholic on this forum) to support your contentions against the Catholic Church, its hard to believe that you understand the ethics of a true Christian.

There are many more reasons which lead me to believe that you really have no understanding of the Catholic Church. You just have an attitude of "Anything but the Catholic Church". I've seen it before. Even on this forum there was a Protestant siding with atheists against Catholics.

The only thing that can explain that type of hatred is the prophecy of Jesus Christ:

John 15 18 If the world hate you, know ye, that it hath hated me before you.

You claim it does, but it neither says what you claim if you actually read that verse in context in English, and especially not if you read in the original Greek language.

I've explained it in English. I've provided the explanation by Protestant Greek Scholars. What more do you want?

I read the page - I see unsubstantiated claims by an unnamed author who you claim to be a Greek expert. I go by what recognized Greek experts say.

Funny you keep saying that but I provided the reference and the name of the Greek Scholars who disagree with you and all you provided was an unsupported denial.

I let scripture speak for itself, but I am sure that you have another private interpretation to offer.

So you don't want to compare your understanding to mine in order to see which is closer to the truth?

You keep using these passages which have nothing to do with tradition.

Sure they do. They are the very definition of tradition.

Clearly Paul was speaking of what was written down and in oral form.

Very good. You're getting warm. But from what you've said, I see that you recognize two forms of tradition, written and oral.

And let me ask you, is Paul still telling us this orally, or do we have it in written form?

We are reading the written tradition. But has the oral tradition disappeared?

And now, I've answered your question but you dodged mine. So, please answer the question. I'll highlight it in bold:

Was tradition already written down when St. Paul said:
2 Thessalonians 2 14 Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.

And where does Paul say that the oral differs from the written?

Who said that the oral differed from the written. Certainly not the Catholic Church:

CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 97 (192 bytes ) preview document matches
"Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God" (DV 10) in which, as in a mirror, the pilgrim Church contemplates God,
URL: CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 97 (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/97.htm)

You're funny

That's OK. I don't mind being funny.

Sincerely,

De Maria

sndbay

Aug 27, 2008, 06:25 AM

Are you saying that Jesus is not the truth:
John 14 6 Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me.

or why did you say simply:

Who is Truth ? Our Father

Sincerely,

De Maria

1 John 5: 6-7 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is Truth. 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Tj3

Aug 27, 2008, 11:36 AM

Well, when the message has the names of the Protestant Greek Scholars BOLDED. Its hard to take you seriously when you say that no name was mentioned.

You claimked that the article was authored by a Greek expert. And just tossing anmes around and maiking claims is not a valid way to validate a claim.

And when you claim that I haven't provided verses to support my contention, and the verses are staring you in the face in the OP, its hard to believe that you are debating in good faith.

You made a claimked that jesus commanded tradition - it isn't there. If you claim it is, copy and paste it here.

When you use the name of a fake Catholic (a Protestant passing herself off as a Catholic on this forum) to support your contentions against the Catholic Church, its hard to believe that you understand the ethics of a true Christian.

What are you smoking? I used no one's name on this forum to validate anything.

There are many more reasons which lead me to believe that you really have no understanding of the Catholic Church. You just have an attitude of "Anything but the Catholic Church". I've seen it before.

Believe what you wish. Your ad hominems say more about you than me.

The only thing that can explain that type of hatred is the prophecy of Jesus Christ:

Here we go - if we dare disagree with you, it is "hatred". Does that mean when you disagree with non-Catholics that you are showing hatred against Christians. Come on, deal with the issue - if you can - and stop the false accusations and abusive comments.

De Maria

Aug 27, 2008, 12:54 PM

You claimked that the article was authored by a Greek expert. And just tossing anmes around and maiking claims is not a valid way to validate a claim.

That is funny!!

This is why its hard to take you seriously. Look at the message again, not only are they named, they are quoted, the titles of their books are included, so is the name of their respective publishing company. The only thing they didn't include is the page number. Please!

Come on Tom! First you pretend there are no names mentioned. I re emphasize the names. Now you pretend there are only names mentioned. What will you come up with next?

You made a claimked that jesus commanded tradition - it isn't there. If you claim it is, copy and paste it here.

Sure. Since it isn't in this OP, I'll be glad to post them again:

John 6 55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.

Matthew 28 19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

1 Cor 11 23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread. 24 And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me. 25 In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.

These are all Traditions.

What are you smoking? I used no one's name on this forum to validate anything.

Sure you did. Message #125 Can you lose your salvation?

the difference is that I was simply indicating that the Roman catholic teaching quoted by saintjoan sounded like the Mormon teaching that heaven was like hell (everlasting burnings).

See also the messages where you were setting it up so she could twist Catholic teaching:

Do dead people go to hell? Page 8 messages 74-78

Believe what you wish. Your ad hominems say more about you than me.

You continue to accuse me of ad hominems because you can't respond to the logic or wisdom of Catholic Teaching.

Here we go - if we dare disagree with you, it is "hatred". Does that mean when you disagree with non-Catholics that you are showing hatred against Christians. Come on, deal with the issue - if you can - and stop the false accusations and abusive comments.

You don't hate the Catholic Church? But if you think the Catholic Church is revealed in Rev 17, why don't you hate Her?

I would.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Tj3

Aug 27, 2008, 06:58 PM

That is funny!!
This is why its hard to take you seriously. Look at the message again, not only are they named, they are quoted, the titles of their books are included, so is the name of their respective publishing company. The only thing they didn't include is the page number. Please!

Why do I waste my time with you - you apparently did not even read what I said. Go back and try again, more slowly this time and turn on the light.

John 6 55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.

Matthew 28 19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

1 Cor 11 23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread. 24 And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me. 25 In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.

So once again - where did Jesus command tradition?

These are all Traditions.

No, none of them are.

Sure you did. Message #125 Can you lose your salvation?

Again I ask, what are you smoking. Your false accusation was:

--------------------
When you use the name of a fake Catholic (a Protestant passing herself off as a Catholic on this forum) to support your contentions against the Catholic Church, its hard to believe that you understand the ethics of a true Christian.
--------------------

If you don't see the difference, then clearly you are not being honest.

You don't hate the Catholic Church? But if you think the Catholic Church is revealed in Rev 17, why don't you hate Her?

I would like nothing more than to see the Roman religion divest itself of the false teachings and come to teach the full uncorrupted Biblical truth. I hate the false teachings, but I care about the people.