[N0help4u]

The Church agrees that if a doctrine is not backed by Scripture, it is false. That is why Sola Scriptura is false.

However, many people can twist Scripture to their own desires. Scripture is clear that this is possible. Therefore the Church requires that doctrine must ALSO be backed by Tradition.

As I am saying sola scriptura is not intended for personal interpretation for people to twist.
As I am saying WHAT tradition? Is it backed with scripture?
As I am saying Purgatory doctrine is not backed by scripture but tradition alone.

[De Maria]

The Church agrees that if a doctrine is not backed by Scripture, it is false. That is why Sola Scriptura is false.

However, many people can twist Scripture to their own desires. Scripture is clear that this is possible. Therefore the Church requires that doctrine must ALSO be backed by Tradition.

As I am saying sola scriptura is not intended for personal interpretation for people to twist.
As I am saying WHAT tradition? Is it backed with scripture?
As I am saying Purgatory doctrine is not backed by scripture but tradition alone.

Sola Scriptura denies a role for Tradition.

But Scripture doesn't. Scripture says:

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

[Tj3]

1. You just shot down Sola Scriptura.
2. And you just contradicted your previous message, you said:

I don't know what you are reading into that, but once again perhaps you do not understand what sola scriptura is. To date you have mis-represented it several times.

The Septuagint version of the Old Testament existed before Christ. It includes the Deuterocanonicals, which include the Maccabean books.

We've been through this. Many different Bibles include non-canonical reference material. And the New Catholic Encyclopedia (among other sources) agree with me. Deny if you wishg - it will not change reality.

Read the thread again. You accused the Church of adding 7 books (message #228). And Nohelp4u reintroduced purgatory into this thread (message #201).

I accused the church of nothing. I accused your denomination of adding to the Bible. You started the topic of prayer to the dead.

After all, you said I misrepresented Sola Scriptura. But the definition you produced is virtually identical to the one I produced.

I have shown you many times. One can explain these things a hundred times, but unless the recipient reads what is posted, we are no further ahead.

To a Catholic, prayer to the Saints is not worship but request. And we find requests of the Saints throughout the Scriptures:

Request is not a prayer, unless that is to a dead person, in which case scripture specifically calls it an abomination.

Try as I might, I couldn't find any reference to Rome as a whore or harlot in Scripture. Try as I might I could find no reference to the Catholic Church as a whore or a harlot in Scripture.

I provided it in my last message, but perhaps you again did not read what I posted.

[Tj3]

Tj3,
We become one with God the Son though partaking of the holy Eucharist.

Communion is symbolic. When I was saved, I was indwelled by the Holy Spirit but that did not make me God.

... some deleted for brevity...

So, by becoming free from sin and of the evils in the world, we share in the divine nature. That is, by becoming so holy we become like God and, in a certain sense, become God.

I don't know who Cody is and it does not matter. I go by what scripture says. Further, Article 460 specifically says that we become God, which is blasphemous. Let me quote it:

460 The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature":78 "For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God."79 "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."80 "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."

It is very specific and clear it what it says. Saying that it does not mean what it clearly says does not address the questions.

[arcura]

NoHelp4U
Purgatory is NOT backed by tradition alone.
There are many Bib;e verses that support the believe in Purgatory.
Here they are, Check then out.
Lk 12:59; 1 Cor 3:15; 1 Pet 1:7; Mt 5:25-26... temporary agony.
Heb 12:6-11... God's painful discipline.
Mt 12:32... no forgiveness... nor in the age to come.
1 Pet 3:19... purgatory (limbo?).
Rev 21:27... nothing unclean shall enter heaven.
Heb 12:23... souls in heaven are perfect.
Col 1:24; 2 Sam 12:14... "extra" suffering.
2 Mac 12:43-46... sacrifice for the dead.
2 Tim 1:15-18... prayer for Onesiphorus for "that Day."
1 Jn 5:14-17... mortal/venial sins
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

[Tj3]

NoHelp4U
Purgatory is NOT backed by tradition alone.
There are many Bib;e verses that support the believe in Purgatory.
Here they are, Check then out.
Lk 12:59; 1 Cor 3:15; 1 Pet 1:7; Mt 5:25-26 ... temporary agony.
Heb 12:6-11 ... God's painful discipline.
Mt 12:32 ... no forgiveness ... nor in the age to come.
1 Pet 3:19 ... purgatory (limbo?).
Rev 21:27 ... nothing unclean shall enter heaven.
Heb 12:23 ... souls in heaven are perfect.
Col 1:24; 2 Sam 12:14 ... "extra" suffering.
2 Mac 12:43-46 ... sacrifice for the dead.
2 Tim 1:15-18 ... prayer for Onesiphorus for "that Day."
1 Jn 5:14-17 ... mortal/venial sins
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

Fred,

I see that you are back to copying off the "Catholic Cheatsheet" on internet :D .
Perhaps it would be best to give credit when you copy and paste someone else's work.

We have been through every one of these, as you know and none of these refer to purgatory. If you want to start another thread, we can examine every one of these in context once again.

[arcura]

Tj3,
The Eucharist is NOT symbolic.
The bible clearly teaches other than what YOU believe about that.
No where does the bible or Jesus say that the Eucharist is symbolic.
Jesus said this IS my body and this IS my blood.
You can twist Scripture all you want to to TRY to change that but you will not successfully do so.

[arcura]

Tj3,
My, my my, does providing information from sources that show what you believe to be wrong unset you that much
That Scripture information has been posted many years for anyone who wants to use it.
It is truth and I will continue to provide it whether you like it or not.
Fred

[N0help4u]

Sola Scriptura denies a role for Tradition.

But Scripture doesn't. Scripture says:

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

If sola scriptura denies the role of tradition then what does sola scriptura do when it comes to the traditions verses IN scripture??

Can you show me a copy of the sola scriptura where it specifically says that exactly?

OH and you haven't explained the verses that I used to speaks against traditions

[Tj3]

Tj3,
The Eucharist is NOT symbolic.
The bible clearly teaches other than what YOU believe about that.
No where does the bible or Jesus say that the Eucharist is symbolic.
Jesus said this IS my body and this IS my blood.
You can twist Scripture all you want to to TRY to change that but you will not successfully do so.

Fred,

I note that you give no reference and if one wishes to make such a claim as you have made, the onus is one you to back it up. We have certainly dealt with John 6 and shown how those who thought that he referred to actual blood and flesh were those who betrayed him.

Let's also look at this passage:

Mark 14:22-26
22 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to them and said, "Take, eat; this is My body." 23 Then He took the cup, and when He had given thanks He gave it to them, and they all drank from it. 24 And He said to them, "This is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many. 25 Assuredly, I say to you, I will no longer drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God."
NKJV

First, note that Jesus was still with them. They were not chewing on His physical body. Second, for him to ask them to eat Him physical would be to call for cannibalism. THird, He is clear that He is referring to drinking of the fruit of the vine - wine - not blood, thus the symbolism.

[Tj3]

Tj3,
My, my my, does providing information from sources that show what you believe to be wrong unset you that much
That Scripture information has been posted many years for anyone who wants to use it.
It is truth and I will continue to provide it whether you like it or not.
Fred

Fred,

If you can find information that shows me to be wrong, I will be quite pleased.

But please take the time to check it out first rather than just copying and pasting from something someone posted on internet. Whoever created this site did a poor job of researching the references.

Just in case you forget, I do know the site:

Christopher Wong

Tom

[arcura]

Tj3,
I have many time provided much scripture passages that prove that the Eucharist is NOT symbolic. The Gospels provide many of Jesus words and statement that show as I mentioned above that Jesus said this IS my body, this IS my blood.
On the other hand you have not and can not provide any bible passage that says that the Eucharist is symbolic.
Fred

[Tj3]

Tj3,
I have many time provided much scripture passages that prove that the Eucharist is NOT symbolic. The Gospels provide many of Jesus words and statement that show as I mentioned above that Jesus said this IS my body, this IS my blood.
On the other hand you have not and can not provide any bible passage that says that the Eucharist is symbolic.
Fred

No, Fred, you have claimed that it is, but have yet to show any scriptural backup.

With all due respect, I do not accept your word above scripture.

You have apparently failed to read my last post (270)

[arcura]

Tj3,
Over the years I have provided those Scripture passages and you KNOW very well that I have so DO NOT say that I haven't. In so doing you are once again making false statements.
Just for you I will provide some other then again.
Mt 26:26-27; Mk 14:22,24; Lk 22:19-20; 1 Cor 10:24-25... this is my body... this is my blood.
1 Cor 11:26-30... sinning against the body and blood.
Jn 6:32-58... long discourse on Eucharist.
Gen 14:18; Ps 110:4; Heb 7:1-17... Melchizedek.
Acts 2:42... breaking of bread.
Ps 27:1-2; Is 9:18-20; Is 49:26; Micah 3:3; Rev 17:6,16... symbolic interpretation of Jn 6 inappropriate.

[Tj3]

tj3,
Over the years I have provided those Scripture passages and you KNOW very well that I have so DO NOT say that I haven't. In so doing you are once again making false statements.
Just for you I will provide some other then again.
Mt 26:26-27; Mk 14:22,24; Lk 22:19-20; 1 Cor 10:24-25 ... this is my body ... this is my blood.
1 Cor 11:26-30 ... sinning against the body and blood.
Jn 6:32-58 ... long discourse on Eucharist.
Gen 14:18; Ps 110:4; Heb 7:1-17 ... Melchizedek.
Acts 2:42 ... breaking of bread.
Ps 27:1-2; Is 9:18-20; Is 49:26; Micah 3:3; Rev 17:6,16 ... symbolic interpretation of Jn 6 inappropriate.

I did not say that you did not copy and paste statements from that website. I said that you have not shown any scriptural backup to validate your claim. Just repeating the same old same old which has been refuted many times is not validation. No matter how many times you copy and paste from that website, Fred, the references do not get any more accurate.

[arcura]

Tj3.
I have that list of passages long before they were ever on any web site.
I and others used them when teaching bible class many years ago and they are still very useful in exposing false or erroneous teaching.
I notice that you like to cut and paste bible scripture passages why it is OK t for you to cut and past things like the quotes you have posted here to day but it is not OK for others to d that?
What males you a privilege character here, Tom.
Do you thing that you are better than everyone else?
Of not then please try to be fair with others.
Thanks,'
Fred

[De Maria]

I don't know what you are reading into that, but once again perhaps you do not understand what sola scriptura is. To date you have mis-represented it several times.

You keep saying that but the definition you presented is very close to the one I presented which is actually Luther's.

In addition, your definition of Sola Scriptura is a doctrine which says that every doctrine must be supported by the standard of Scripture alone.

Yet, your doctrine fails its own standard. Because Sola Scriptura as Scripture is the sole standard of doctrine, can't be found in Scripture.

We've been through this. Many different Bibles include non-canonical reference material. And the New Catholic Encyclopedia (among other sources) agree with me. Deny if you wishg - it will not change reality.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia recognizes the Deuterocanonicals. But it is true many Protestant Bibles still keep the Deuterocanonicals in a section they call Apocrypha. This is further proof that

1. the ancient Christian Bible included the Deuterocanonicals but Luther took them out.
2. and that Trent did not add them, but confirmed them in Scripture.

I accused the church of nothing. I accused your denomination of adding to the Bible. You started the topic of prayer to the dead.

Really? Show me. Because I believe my mention of prayer TO THE SAINTS was in response to someone calling it SAINT WORSHIP. In fact, I thought it was YOU (Message #245).

I have shown you many times. One can explain these things a hundred times, but unless the recipient reads what is posted, we are no further ahead.

The feeling is mutual.

Request is not a prayer, unless that is to a dead person, in which case scripture specifically calls it an abomination.

No. Scripture calls divination an abomination.

Since Christians who die in Christ are alive in Christ, prayer to Saints is request.

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:

I provided it in my last message, but perhaps you again did not read what I posted.

Lets go over it again.

Rev 17:1-6

1 And there came one of the seven angels, who had the seven vials, and spoke with me, saying: Come, I will show thee the condemnation of the great harlot, who sitteth upon many waters, 2 With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication; and they who inhabit the earth, have been made drunk with the whine of her whoredom. 3 And he took me away in spirit into the desert. And I saw a woman sitting upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. 4 And the woman was clothed round about with purple and scarlet, and gilt with gold, and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand, full of the abomination and filthiness of her fornication. 5 And on her forehead a name was written: A mystery; Babylon the great, the mother of the fornications, and the abominations of the earth.

6 And I saw the woman drunk with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. And I wondered, when I had seen her, with great admiration.

Will you look at that. No mention whatsoever of Rome, nor of the Church AT ALL. As usual, you are reading that into Scripture.

This is why your doctrine of Scripture alone is a false doctrine. It is precisely the methodology you used to impose your prejudices against the Catholic Church into Scripture.

Sincerely,

De Maria

[Tj3]

Tj3.
I have that list of passages long before they were ever on any web site.
I and others used them when teaching bible class many years ago and they are still very useful in exposing false or erroneous teaching.

I use them in showing how people take scripture out of context to support false doctrine..

I notice that you like to cut and paste bible scripture passages why it is OK t for you to cut and past things like the quotes you have posted here to day but it is not OK for others to d that?

It is okay for anyone. But I think that before anyone does so, if they want their input to add value to a discussion, they should first check out what they are posting - in context - rather than just blindly copying and pasting something somebody posted on a website or something that their denomination said that they are to believe.

What males you a privilege character here, Tom.
Do you thing that you are better than everyone else?
Of not then please try to be fair with others.
Thanks,'
Fred

I note that whenever you cannot deal with the issue, you go after the person.

[Tj3]

You keep saying that but the definition you presented is very close to the one I presented which is actually Luther's.

Actually your definition varies significantly, but for some reason you won't acknowledge that fact.

Yet, your doctrine fails its own standard. Because Sola Scriptura as Scripture is the sole standard of doctrine, can't be found in Scripture.

Sigh! You keep making that false claim.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia recognizes the Deuterocanonicals.

Yes they do, and they recognize that the Roman catholic denomination did not do so until the Council of Trent.

Really? Show me. Because I believe my mention of prayer TO THE SAINTS was in response to someone calling it SAINT WORSHIP. In fact, I thought it was YOU (Message #245).

Here is one example from a book endorsed by the Roman Church and written by a doctor of the Roman Church - from the book "The Glories of Mary"

"The holy Church commands a worship peculiar to Mary"

No. Scripture calls divination an abomination.

Maybe you are not aware of what necromancy is.

Since Christians who die in Christ are alive in Christ, prayer to Saints is request.

This old one :D . Necrmancy refers to those dead in the flesh. Look at 1 Samuel 28 to see how God feels about talking to dead saints.

Better yet, why don't you show us where speaking to dead saints is endorsed in scripture!

Will you look at that. No mention whatsoever of Rome, nor of the Church AT ALL. As usual, you are reading that into Scripture.

So where is the city on seven hills?

[N0help4u]

Since Christians who die in Christ are alive in Christ, prayer to Saints is request.

Die to Christ means to give up your old ways and follow Christ it has NOTHING to do with physical death.

The Bible forbids praying to or through anybody but Jesus
That is where De Marie misunderstands by saying it is no different than asking a friend to pray for you
A. Communicating with people that have passed on is forbidden
B. When you ask Mary to intercede it is through a 'prayer' NOT an 'hey Mary will you pray for me?'