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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

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.

---

Ok, I'll see you on the boards.

Sincerely,

De Maria

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.

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.

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 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.

The bible is complete with information about salvation.

Regarding your argument above, you fail to consider the limitation of oral tradition; you also fail to provide the basis of its "absolute allowance". While it is true that we are instructed to hear the church, you should also consider the question, "To who should the church listen?" While it is true that we may preach orally, you should also consider the question, "what will be the basis of our preaching?".

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Criado

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

The bible is complete with information about salvation.

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

There is none since God safeguards His Word.

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

Correct.

Quote:

---

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

---

To the Word of God.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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.

---

Quote:

---

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...
-----------------

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

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.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Criado

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

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.

Quote:

---

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

---

Once again, your claim.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galveston1

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.

Quote:

---

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

---

This is definitely a good exercise.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Criado

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.)

Quote:

---

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

---

Correct.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

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
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 [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 = Asiatic Christian

Asiatic Christian
NETBible: 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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

Sincerely,

De Maria

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sndbay

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
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 [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 = Asiatic Christian

Asiatic Christian
NETBible: 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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

I note that you avoided the question.

---

I did? Where?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sndbay

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

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"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

Why? I never professed such a thing.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

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.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

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.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

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)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

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