Like I said, the whole idea is to get the Word of God out to the people. Arguing about who Jesus may or may not have made a shepard is non-productive. At least to me. YMMV of course.
"what about the whole bunch of stuff that's been removed from it over the years by Protestant "Shepards"?"
Since I was not around however many eons ago they supposedly removed verses or books from the Bible, I can't say.
What is a "protestant shepard"? Is that like "bashing" protestants?
Stephen asked a very straight forward question --
"I would have thought a Catholic would be the first to admit that there are things that Jesus and the apostles did that are not written about. (snip) If this principle can be applied when Catholic ideas are to be accepted, why is it not to be considered when Catholic ideas are in question?
And he gets this response.
"Well, see, that's what you get for "thinking."
DON'T make assumptions about Catholics or the Catholic Church. You know what they say when you "assume" anything.
Please allow me to say "Real Christian attitude there".
But I will ask it for myself. If a question is "good for the goose", then why isn't it "good for the gander"?
You know, I am really sorry, but Catholics constantly say they are bashed and we protestants are "beating a dead horse". Maybe we wouldn't do this if we got an answer other than something on the order of "the Church fathers said so" or it is "Sacred Tradition". By definition, tradition is basically something that has "always been done that way". And having been always done that way in a church makes it "Sacred". Fine. No argument there. But where I have a problem is when I am told, or I read that this tradition is based on things that the apostles supposedly said but "it didn't get written down". Why in the world should I believe that? How do I know they said that? Because a Catholic said so? If a Catholic wants me to agree with their teachings, (in actuality they probably could care less) they will have to come up with something better that "it just didn't get written down".
So many times, a Catholic will be asked a question about their beliefs and the reponse will be along the lines of "The Catholic Church teaches.....". Why skirt the issue? If I said to you, "Why do you belive that Peter started the Catholic Church?", and you said "The Church teaches that Jesus called Peter the rock on which the church was built", you are not answering the question. You are skirting the issue by saying what the church teaches, NOT what you believe. So, the question gets battered until the thread is 50 pages long and it is eventually closed because it is a "dead horse" and all because the question was never answered in the first place. If you believe that every word that the church teaches is exactly as you believe, say so in your answer.
It makes it a whole lot simpler. If you don't want us, as protestants, to "make assumptions", simply answer the question.
You can call me a "fundy" if you want to. It won't hurt my feelings at all. I do not, however, believe that the KJV is the only "true" translation of the Bible. But when a question is asked about, say Mary, and we, as protestants, are told that "Mary was sinless, and lived a sinless life", and that it is backed up by scripture, I have to ask, "What Bible are you reading?" And when shown that the Bible does not say that, then it becomes "Sacred Tradition", or is something that the Early Church Fathers taught.
Now, can Catholics here see where I am coming from? I am quite sure that I am not going to change anything by my post. I doubt that Catholics will change the way they answer questions posed to them because of this post. In fact, I may even make an enemy or two. If that is the case, so be it. I have my Bible and God says that it stands alone and is innerant.