 |
Your belief Purgatory we already covered that it is not scriptural because it cancels the meaning for Jesus death. So that doctrine does not line up with scripture.
You believe pray to Mary the scripture says there is only one intercessor.
Tom says back doctrine with scripture
You believe back scripture to doctrine
Which is the correct standard?
He said sole standard meaning back up what you believe with scripture
He did not say sola scriptura
Basically by insisting Tom is sola scriptura you are admitting that the Catholic doctrines are not solely based on scripture validation. You want to believe the Church has the power and authority to make traditions and doctrines separate from the Bible that is where you and Tom differ. Your interpreting his statement as proving he is scripture only is your perception.
Actually nobody can be sola scriptura because nobody has the one and only true interpretation.
It doesn't. But you have just defined it and it sounds very much like what Luther said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Luther said, Sola Scriptura, Scripture is the sole rule of faith.
You said, Sola Scriptura, Scripture is the sole standard for doctrine.
What is the difference?
That doctrine is not a Catholic Doctrine. It was defined by Luther and denounced by the Catholic Church. It is a false doctrine.Quote:
as defined by Roman Catholics.
No. I believe this argument you are making here, that the Church defined Sola Scriptura is a straw man to make the uninformed believe that the Church has misrepresented Sola Scriptura. But the head to head comparison of what Luther said, and what you say, is right above. There is hardly any difference and neither of them are in Scripture.Quote:
This is a strawman put up by the catholic church to oppose sola scriptura.
So they both fail. Scripture, the rule of faith, does not mention Sola Scriptura as either sole standard of doctrine or sole rule of faith. And if there is a difference of meaning between those two statements, you are splitting hairs.
You have contradicted yourself. Do you accept documents outside of Scripture which do not contradict Scripture as doctrinal or not? In one sentence you say you do, in the very next you say they are speculation. Which is it?Quote:
I have no problem with accepting other documents, writings etc, as long as they can be shown to be in alignment with scripture. Indeed, documents which go outside of scripture but do not contradict oppose or contradict Biblical doctrine can be accepted as speculation but not doctrinal.
Sincerely,
De Maria
I don't understand why you have a hard time comprehending backing doctrine with scripture.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
You think Tom is contradicting himself when it is simply that you do not seem to be able to comprehend the differentiation and I haven't a clue how to make it any more simple
Lol!!Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
He said that Sola Scriptura means sole standard.
Read it again:
"It" in "it is the belief", refers to Sola Scriptura.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
I told you previously - it is the belief that scripture is the sole standard for doctrine.
Correct. They are based on the Word of God which is carried in Scripture AND Tradition.Quote:
Basically by insisting Tom is sola scriptura you are admitting that the Catholic doctrines are not solely based on scripture validation.
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 there are two forms of tradition we must keep. Epistle means Scripture. Word means oral. We, as Catholics, keep them both.
In addition, the Bible also says we must turn to the 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.
We, as Catholics, do so. Scripture tells us to.
But Scripture nowhere says that we must "soley base our beliefs on Scripture validation".
Nowhere. Unless you can provide the verse.
No. That is your misrepresentation of the Church. Sacred Tradition and Scripture are one Word of God. They are inseparable.Quote:
You want to believe the Church has the power and authority to make traditions and doctrines separate from the Bible that is where you and Tom differ.
You and Tom want to separate the two. But that is not God's will. Again, review 2 Thess 2:14 above. We keep both Traditions. You have denied one of them.
He said so. Why don't you discuss that with him?Quote:
Your interpreting his statement as proving he is scripture only is your perception.
We are not Sola Scripturist and we do have the true interpretation of Scripture.Quote:
Actually nobody can be sola scriptura because nobody has the one and only true interpretation.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
As I have shown in a message to which you didn't respond. Jesus used His innate wisdom, parables based on Rabbiinic tradition and Rabbinic tradition and Scripture.Quote:
Answer me this - what did Jesus use to validate sound doctrine? Was Jesus wrong? Should He have submitted Himself to the teachings of the religious leaders?
Sincerely,
De Maria
Just shows you do not get it!Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
If I say the sole standard for making a cake is to read recipes
That means I do not look up a cake recipe in the mechanics repair book
That does not mean that the cake IS made precisely according to the recipe I found in the recipe book.
But that I used the formula to make the cake. If motor oil is not in the recipe book I do not use motor oil.
Catholic Church uses motor oil in their recipe and then try to find a way to justify it even though it is not in
The recipe book.
Also why do you accept a religion that does not back up everything by the Bible?
Very good. And God sent Prophets to tell the Jewish People His message and established a Levitical Priesthood to explain His message. Therefore, the Jewish people did not rely on Scripture alone.Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
Again, God set up men like Moses and Aaron, Joshua and David to direct our paths and He provided priests, like Nathan, to direct their paths. In fact, for many years, the Scriptures were lost to the Jews, but they still had access to the Prophets and the Priests.Quote:
# In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths."
Note first that this doesn't say that ONLY the Scriptures are inspired. And it can't because St. Peter tells us that Holy Men are also inspired.Quote:
# "And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."
Then note that the Scriptures are good for what? For doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness. Therefore the Scriptures are never alone. They must be taught!!
Romans 10 14 How then shall they call on him, in whom they have not believed? Or how shall they believe him, of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear, without a preacher?
Note that one does not need to necessarily study Scripture. The tradition of preaching, of teaching of itinerant Rabbis, of which Jesus is a prime example, was going strong back then and it is still strong today.Quote:
# Study to show yourself approved to God, a workman that needs not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
Yes, but the Word of God is not limited to a book. It is also alive and well in the Traditions of the Church.Quote:
# For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.
Remember that Scripture came from Tradition. Not the other way around. First men spoke then what they spoke was written.Quote:
Why God wants use to back doctrine with scripture rather than scripture to a doctrine
Remember also that first Jesus spoke His doctrines, then the Church taught them and then the Church wrote them down in Scripture. And when they wrote them down they did not cease to teach.
Good, let us see the fruits of the Protestant reformation:Quote:
Matthew 7:15,16 Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits...
1. Division - the slightest disagreement in doctrine inspires another denomination.
2. Divorce - What God has joined together let no man tear asunder.
3. Contraception - Few if any Protestant denominations denounce the evil of contraception.
We believe this has happened in Protestantism. It is they who multiply denominations simply because they disagree with doctrine.Quote:
2 Timothy 4:3,4 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth , and be turned aside to fables.
Luther, Calvin and Zwingli, the architects of the Protestant reformation were all originally Catholic Priests.Quote:
Acts 20:29-31 For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves . Therefore watch, and remember that for three years I did not cease to warn everyone night and day with tears.
Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide, the Pillars of the Protestant Reformation, are traditions of men which contradict the Word of God.Quote:
Matthew 15:9 And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.
Again, sadly, Luther, Calvin and Zwingli were Catholic priests.Quote:
2 Peter 2:1 But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
This is precisely a contradiction of the Protestant doctrine of the Perspicuity (easy to understand, self explanatory) nature of Scripture.Quote:
2 Peter 3:16,17 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures. You therefore, beloved, since you know this beforehand, beware lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with the error of the wicked;
Here, Scripture Itself tells you that some things in Scripture are difficult to understand. That is why God provided a standard for us to which we have recourse, the Church.
Again, the traditions of men such as Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide have been used to cheat many. The medicine is the true doctrines taught by the Catholic Church throughout the millennia.Quote:
Colossians 2:8 Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.
Fuirther proof of the necessity of the Church for the teaching of true doctrine.Quote:
Hebrews 13:9 Do not be carried about with various and strange doctrines. For it is good that the heart be established by grace, not with foods which have not profited those who have been occupied with them.
Please note carefully that none of these mention "Scripture alone" at all. And none of these even imply Scripture alone. In fact, they confirm Scripture and Tradition by Church Teaching.
Sincerely,
De Maria
I don't.Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
You want to confuse man made doctrines and traditions with the traditions taught by Jesus and the Rabbi's. Yes they did not use the Book because the book was about what THEY taught so don't you think that what the Catholic Church teaches should line up with what they taught?
Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide, the Pillars of the Protestant Reformation, are traditions of men which contradict the Word of God.
So you are saying that sola scriptura is NOT the Bible?
I am sorry I thought you have been saying that Tom goes only by the Bible.
What traditions of sola scriptura contradicts the Bible?
Why do you insist that the traditions of the Catholic church are right when they do not follow the Bible but you insist that Toms beliefs are tradition and not the Bible?
Yes, we discussed the doctrine. I believe we are still discussing it. I have so far gotten you to admit that we do make satisfaction for our sins. Having accepted that you should logically accept the doctrine of Purgatory.Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
The Scriptures also say that there is only one teacher. Yet you and everyone accept many teachers. So, the Scriptures really mean that there is a Primary Intercessor, whom we are called to imitate. Therefore, when someone says "pray for me", I don't turn around and say, "DON'T YOU KNOW THERE IS ONLY ONE INTERCESSOR!!!" No, I pray for him.Quote:
You believe pray to Mary the scripture says there is only one intercessor.
And knowing that God is a God of the living we know that the souls in heaven are ready, willing and able to pray for us when asked.
You still don't understand.Quote:
Tom says back doctrine with scripture
You believe back scripture to doctrine
Which is the correct standard?
Tom says back doctrine with Scirpture ALONE.
I say what the Church teaches. Doctrine must be backed by Scripture AND Tradition.
Here's an example.
Many centuries ago, Arius and Athanasius got into an argument about doctrine. They both believed they were correct. They both used Scripture to back them up and they both claimed the Holy Spirit was on their side.
They took their argument to the Church. The Church compared Arius claim and Athanasius claim to what? To Scripture? Nooooo!!
They compared the claims of both to the Traditional Teachings of the Church Fathers from all antiquity. And they discovered that Arius was teaching a novelty. The Church had never interpreted Scripture they way Arisus taught. But the Church had always believed and taught what Athanasius taught.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Yes, we discussed the doctrine. I believe we are still discussing it. I have so far gotten you to admit that we do make satisfaction for our sins. Having accepted that you should logically accept the doctrine of Purgatory.
I did not say we make satisfaction for our sins after we die. I said the believers judgment our works are refined not our sins.
Thank you. What the Church teaches lines up with Jesus teachings exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
Correct.Quote:
So you are saying that sola scriptura is NOT the Bible?
I am saying that Tom believes a tradition of men called Sola Scriptura wherein people are taught that they can interpret the Bible independently of the Church. They use the Bible as their sole standard of doctrine without consideration of what was taught by the Church for centuries before them.Quote:
I am sorry I thought you have been saying that Tom goes only by the Bible.
Sola Scriptura Itself.Quote:
What traditions of sola scriptura contradicts the Bible?
Sola Fide.
Once Saved Always Saved.
The reduction of Mary's role in salvation.
The reduction in our role in our salvation.
The idea that one must sin for grace to abound.
And many more.
It is the other way around. The Catholic Church follows the Bible. Many of Tom's beliefs do not. Nor do many of yours.Quote:
Why do you insist that the traditions of the Catholic church are right when they do not follow the Bible but you insist that Toms beliefs are tradition and not the Bible?
Why do you keep referring back to Tom? I mean, its OK, but it seems strange. I'm used to debating with people who defend their own beliefs, not someone else's. Do you believe what he believes?
Sincerely,
De Maria
And I asked what our works represent and where are they because we don't take anything with us?Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
Have you answered that question(s)? If you have, I missed it.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Works are like if you do things to please God and try to work your way to salvation rather than being lead by God. Like if you knock yourself out for to do favors for God but that wasn't where God wanted you or what he wanted you to be doing then your works are straw they get destroyed and they do not receive a crown. If you were lead by the Holy Spirit then your works receive one of the crowns.
Remember with Cain and Abel God accepted ones sacrifice and not the others
Mat 7:21 -23 ¶ Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? And in thy name have cast out devils? And in thy name done many wonderful works?
And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
1 corinth 3:11-16
For no one can lay a foundation other than the one that is there, namely, Jesus Christ.
If anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, or straw
The work of each will come to light, for the Day will disclose it. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire (itself) will test the quality of each one's work.
If the work stands that someone built upon the foundation, that person will receive a wage. But if someone's work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved, but only as through fire. Do you not know that you are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?
# The Crown of Life.This crown rewards the believer's faithfulness during trials. The Lord will reward those who accept trials with joy (James 1:2-3, 12). If we will love and trust God during times of adversity, our moral strength and stamina will only increase and make our character pleasing to God. Regardless of how bad things may appear, God wants us to trust in Him.
# The Crown of Righteousness. This crown is for those who long to see Him face to face, and ponder it daily (2 Tim. 4:7-8). Jesus talked about this longing in the parable of the master who went on a long journey (Matt. 24:44-51). Servants who eagerly and actively await their master's appearing are those who love their master and obey His instructions even during His absence.
# The Crown of Glory. This crown awaits those, who out of right motives, shepherd God's people (I Peter 5: 2-4). Shepherds are not merely to tell the sheep how to live, but to demonstrate by their own lives how to live. Jesus provided the example of the perfect shepherd, and He also provides the strength to follow His example. God will reward those who serve others eagerly and see their labor as a privilege. This crown is reserved for those who have the same heart Jesus has toward His sheep, described in John 10:11: I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep.
# The Crown of Rejoicing. This is the soul winner's crown (I Thess. 2:19-20). It is not hard to understand God's eagerness to reward those who bring the lost to Him. But we are not always geared toward evangelism and we let negative thinking hinder our reaching out. We must realize that a relationship with God is exactly what unbelievers are searching for, whether they realize it or not, and reaching out to them causes God to rejoice.
I can't say that I disagree with any of that.Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
What are works of iniquity?
Sincerely,
De Maria
DEATH IF they were not covered under Jesus' blood.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
------------------
The idea that one must sin for grace to abound.
I don't see Tom believing that.
Where does he say that?
You never did answer my question is purgatory before or after the judgment?
And is the duration different lengths according to your sins?
Good. Then you know that I have presented some of the scriptural basis for sola scriptura.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
I am still waiting for you to validate your belief in tradition. Keep in mind that the onus is on you as I stated once before, and here is why:
- We all agree that the 66 books accepted and identified by the early church are canonical.
- Your denomination and you accept additional books and tradition as canonical.
- Scripture says:
Prov 30:5-6
5 Every word of God is pure;
He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him.
6 Do not add to His words,
Lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar.
NKJV
The onus is therefore is on those who wish to add to the books accepted by all Christians as canonical to validate that the additional source(s) are the word of God.
I note that you did not respond to my question. My questions was with respect to what Jesus used to validate sound doctrine.Quote:
As I have shown in a message to which you didn't respond. Jesus used His innate wisdom, parables based on Rabbiinic tradition and Rabbinic tradition and Scripture.
Now, as to the source of the parables, if you are saying that Jesus relied on Rabbinic tradition, then you would be denying His divinity. The reason is that Rabbinic tradition is documented in the Talmud, and came from the Rabbis themselves, who often added to the law given in scripture, which is what Jesus referred to when He said:
Matt 15:2-4
3 He answered and said to them, "Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?
NKJV
Ok. I get the reference. So works of iniquity are sin.Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
Now, are these works tested? If so, where?
I didn't say that Tom believed that. He might or might not.Quote:
I don't see Tom believing that.
Where does he say that?
The fact is that the Catholic Church has one set of beliefs, one doctrine.
But Bible Christians have many. In fact, there are probably as many sets of beliefs as there are Bible Christians because you have no authority to standardize your beliefs. That includes you.
Sincerely,
De Maria
I believe it is the Judgement.Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
Since this occurs outside of time, I don't believe that there is any duration to it.Quote:
and is the duration different lengths according to your sins?
In the Judgment of the unbelievers. The great white throne judgment.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Unsaved sinners will be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord.
From what I looked up on the Catholic sites it says 12 months.
But the Bible says to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord
Great! And when will this take place which is described in 1 Cor 3:15?Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
No, Nohelp4u, that is wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
You and Tom and I use the same recipe book.
The recipe book states that traditions are part of the recipe (2 Thess 2:14).
You and Tom have taken the recipe book and changed it to remove traditions.
Also the recipe book which we, you, Tom and I, use says that the Church is the cook whom we must hear to determine how to cook and whether our cooking is done correctly.
You and Tom have disregarded those instructions.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Maybe you'd be best to speak for your denomination rather than for Bible believing Christians. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Those who believe in the Bible do have one set of doctrines. The problem with many churches - and this is true of Catholic as well as Protestant denominations - is that many choose to allow their doctrines to be established by interpretations of men rather than allowing scripture to interpret itself.
It does not say the Catholic Church is the cook that can cook up concoctions contrary to the word. Also you keep insisting that tradition is important when the Bible says about tradition
"Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? [Y]e made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. Ye hypocrites." Matthew 15:3, 6, 7
Then the Pharisees and scribes asked [Jesus], why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?
He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is WRITTEN [Jesus is quoting the Bible], This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men...
And he said unto them, Full well YE REJECT THE COMMANDMENT OF GOD, THAT YE MAY KEEP YOUR OWN TRADITION.
Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye. Mark 7:5-9, 13
Not true. Your denomination has added to the recipe book, and then modified the recipe book by interpreting the recipes in the manner which your leaders wanted, contrary to scripture:Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
2 Peter 1:20-21
20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, 21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
NKJV
Maybe you mean a different 2 Thess 2:14? :DQuote:
The recipe book states that traditions are part of the recipe (2 Thess 2:14).
2 Thess 2:14
14 to which He called you by our gospel, for the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
NKJV
I've read your posts, but I've seen nothing which provides a basis for Sola Scriptura within your messages.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Certainly:Quote:
I am still waiting for you to validate your belief in tradition.
2 Thessalonians 2 14 Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.
Does that suffice?
On me?Quote:
Keep in mind that the onus is on you
I don't mind. I've provided and will continue to provide the evidence for my position.
However, remember the OP. The question is to you:
So, actually, the onus is on you to prove why we must disobey the Church.Quote:
Yet some people say we should neglect the Church and listen to Scripture alone?
Why, if doing so is to disobey Scripture?
The early Church accepted and identified 73 books. Note that the first to remove the 7 books of the Old Testament were the Jews in the council of Jamnia:Quote:
as I stated once before, and here is why:
- We all agree that the 66 books accepted and identified by the early church are canonical.
About 90-95 A.D., or several decades after the beginning of Christianity, the Jews called a council to deal with the matter. In this council, called the "Council of Jamnia*", Jewish Pharisees, who survived the devastating destruction of Jerusalem and of their temple in 70 A.D., decided to remove books that were helpful to Christians. They removed the seven books, using various reasons as their "authorization" to do so. Keep in mind, that the Greek speaking Jews had been using the Septuagint for well over two centuries by this time. It was the Bible of the Greek speaking "Bereans" of Acts 17:10-15 for which Protestants like to quote to try to "prove" their false man-made doctrine of "Sola Scriptura".
Some non-Catholics charge that the seven books were not added to the Septuagint until the fourth century. If that were true, how could the Council of Jamnia have removed them in the first century if they were not there?
Canon of Scripture
But those were the Jews, the Christians continued to hold the 7 deuterocanonical books, what you call the apocrypha until the time of Luther. Luther then sided with the Jews who hated Jesus and took out the 7 books:
[I]By the actions of Protestant reformers in acceptance of the 39 book Old Testament, which was declared the whole of Scripture by the Jewish Pharisees at Jamnia, the Protestants have made it tantamount to approval of the Pharisaic Jews who rejected Jesus and persecuted the Church. [/IThe canonical Scriptures tell us to accept tradition (2 Thess 2:14).Quote:
]
- Your denomination and you accept additional books and tradition as canonical.
And Sola Scriptura is an addition to Scripture. So is Sola Fide and every man made tradition which contradicts Catholic doctrine.Quote:
- Scripture says:
Prov 30:5-6
5 Every word of God is pure;
He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him.
6 Do not add to His words,
Lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar.
NKJV
It is actually on those who wish to remove authentic Scripture simply because they teach things which are not agreeable with their man-made traditions.Quote:
The onus is therefore is on those who wish to add to the books accepted by all Christians as canonical to validate that the additional source(s) are the word of God.
I sure did.Quote:
I note that you did not respond to my question. My questions was with respect to what Jesus used to validate sound doctrine.
Often but not always. Jesus did not condemn all Rabbinic tradition. Only those which contradict the Word of God.Quote:
Now, as to the source of the parables, if you are saying that Jesus relied on Rabbinic tradition, then you would be denying His divinity. The reason is that Rabbinic tradition is documented in the Talmud, and came from the Rabbis themselves, who often added to the law given in scripture, which is what Jesus referred to when He said:
Matt 15:2-4
3 He answered and said to them, "Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?
NKJV
Sincerely,
De Maria
Often but not always. Jesus did not condemn all Rabbinic tradition. Only those which contradict the Word of God
EXACTLY the point we are trying to get across about the Catholic Church tradition contradicting the word of God.
Interesting - your Bible's verse numbering appears to be off. But no, that won't work because it speaks of what the Apostles taught in writing and verbally (note - no difference between the two), and they are dead therefore no longer on earth teaching in verbally - that leaves us with what they wrote, and scripture says not to go beyond what is written.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Actually, I would never suggest that we disobey the true church, but the true church is not a denomination. We have been through this over and over. What you want is not for us to obey the true church, but to submit to your denomination. That I will not do, because the doctrines of your denomination are contrary to God's word.Quote:
However, remember the OP. The question is to you:
So, actually, the onus is on you to prove why we must disobey the Church.
The additional books were added by the Roman church at the council of Trent. I have the complete proceedings of the council in front of me.Quote:
[I]The early Church accepted and identified 73 books.
Lets see:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
In the first century, the Jews in the council of Jamnia REMOVED 7 books from the Old Testament. They couldn't have removed them if they weren't there, could they?
deuter.htm
But Christians continued to use the 46 books of the Old Testament:
Septuagint
And the 73 books of the entire Bible were listed by Pope Damasus who served between 366 and 384:
As early as Pope Damasus, 366-384, in his Decree, listed the books of today's canon.393 in the Council of Hippo and several times thereafter:
The Canon of the Bible
That list was confirmed several times and finally, in response to Luther's attacks, in the council of Trent in 1556.
Yes, I do. I mean the one in the 73 book Bible which uses the 46 books of the Old Testament which Jesus used.Quote:
2 Peter 1:20-21
20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, 21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
NKJV
I'm glad you brought this up. Did you notice that it was Holy Men who were inspired to speak?
2 Thess 2:14Quote:
Maybe you mean a different 2 Thess 2:14? :D
14 to which He called you by our gospel, for the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
NKJV
2 Thessalonians 2 14 Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.
;)
Sincerely,
De Maria
First, you mis-understand Jewish history - they removed nothing. They were defining Jewish canon. The fact that when Jewish canon was first defined, the apochryphal books were not there is yet another indication of their lack of canonical status.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
The apochryphal books were not accepted by any denomination until the Council of Trent when the Roman Church chose to add them.
You need to get a new Bible with the right verse numbering!
Since our Bible precedes yours, I would say that your bible's numbering is off.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
We don't.Quote:
But no, that won't work because it speaks of what the Apostles taught in writing and verbally (note - no difference between the two), and they are dead therefore no longer on earth teaching in verbally - that leaves us with what they wrote, and scripture says not to go beyond what is written.
But let me ask you. Why did St. Paul instruct Timothy to select men who would teach?
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.
Then which Church do you obey?Quote:
Actually, I would never suggest that we disobey the true church,
Not at all. I am not the one telling you to disobey your Church. You are the one telling me to disobey mine.Quote:
but the true church is not a denomination. We have been through this over and over. What you want is not for us to obey the true church, but to submit to your denomination.
I'm simply asking you on what Scriptural basis you tell me to disobey the Church?
I've shown that they are not. I've also shown that yours are.Quote:
That I will not do, because the doctrines of your denomination are contrary to God's word.
However, this begs another question, who are you to tell me what the Bible says?
Do you have a higher authority than the Church? Do I find your name in Scripture saying that you are the Pillar of Truth?
Good. Let me ask you, if the Catholic Church added the books in the Council of Trent, how is it that Luther removed them before the Council of Trent? He couldn't have removed what wasn't there in the first place, could he?Quote:
The additional books were added by the Roman church at the council of Trent. I have the complete proceedings of the council in front of me.
And how is it that these books are listed included in every Christian Bible before Luther came along?
Sincerely,
De Maria
No, I'm certain, they were there. It is called the Septuagint. This included the 46 books of the Old Testament.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
The Jews removed it in response to the fact that the followers of Christ were using it.
Besides, Christians were using the 46 books of the Old Testament before and after the council of Jamnia.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Heh heh heh - nice try, but no cigar. Odd, but you did you the correct numbering here:Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christ...ml#post1175162
What is important is that they be faithful, Paul said, which means that they would teach Biblical doctrine, not traditions of men.Quote:
But let me ask you. Why did St. Paul instruct Timothy to select men who would teach?
The body of Christ of which Jesus alone is the head. I do not place any denomination above Jesus.Quote:
Then which Church do you obey?
When your tells you to believe a doctrine which is not scriptural, I would indeed think that it is best to disobey your church. Scripture tells you this also.Quote:
Not at all. I am not the one telling you to disobey your Church. You are the one telling me to disobey mine.
A person who can read.Quote:
However, this begs another question, who are you to tell me what the Bible says?
I do have a higher authority than yopur denomination. I follow Jesus and His word. That is a much higher authority than your denomination.Quote:
Do you have a higher authority than the Church?
You say that you have shown that your churches doctrines are not contrary to the word of God but we are the ones that showed you that purgatory is contradicting the word of God AND Jesus' sacrifice.
You need to study more about the history of scripture. You are mixing up so many things. You appear to think that because something is bound with scripture, it is part of the canon. Does that make study notes in the Thompson study Bible part of canon? No, of course not, and just because some additional books were added for reference purposes does not make them canonical.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
A discussion such as this does not allow adequate time to deal with the mis-understandings that have been posted regarding how the canon was established.
True. I did the correct numbering.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Odd, I don't see the word "biblical" doctrine in there. I see where he said, "2 Timothy 2Quote:
What is important is that they be faithful, Paul said, which means that they would teach Biblical doctrine, not traditions of men.
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.
Heard of me. Not what you have "read in Scripture".
Nor do I. But, since Jesus created the Church, I accept her authority:Quote:
The body of Christ of which Jesus alone is the head. I do not place any denomination above Jesus.
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.
Scripture tells me that the Church is the Pillar of Truth. Therefore Scripture tells me that Church doctrine is always consistent with Scripture. Otherwise, it wouldn't support the truth, would it? And that is what pillars do, support things. The Pillar of Truth, supports the truth.Quote:
When your tells you to believe a doctrine which is not scriptural, I would indeed think that it is best to disobey your church. Scripture tells you this also.
So, try again.
So, any person who can read is a higher authority than God's Church?Quote:
A person who can read.
I'm glad you said that because it gives me the opportunity to highlight it and contrast it to the wisdom of the Church.
Example: Does the United States entrust the interpretation of the Constitution to anyone who can read? Of course not. That would be foolish and a recipe for anarchy.
God is not less wise than the US Government. God also does not entrust His Sciriptures to be interpreted correctly by anyone who can read. He entrusts that job to the one Institution which He calls the Pillar of Truth.
My denomination is the Church which Jesus built. And the Church which Jesus built is called the Pillar of Truth in the Bible. If you had a higher authority than that Church, you would be mentioned in said Bible, but you aren't.Quote:
I do have a higher authority than yopur denomination. I follow Jesus and His word. That is a much higher authority than your denomination.
So, try again. Just saying you have higher authority than the Church doesn't make it so.
Not true. You follow YOUR interpretation of Jesus word. That is not the same thing since your interpretation is erroneous.Quote:
I follow Jesus and His word.
Sincerely,
De Maria
You've done no such thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
I've shown you that Sola Scriptura contradicts the Bible and you agreed.
And I've shown you that Purgatory is very much in Scripture. And you agreed that indeed at the Judgement seat, works of iniquity will be burned. That is precisely Purgatory.
Sincerely,
De Maria
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:47 PM. |