Catechism of the Catholic Church--A great resource for everyone

concretecamper · Mar 13, 2019

Major1 said:
So then allow me to ask you which one of those Catholic doctrines is Biblical.

Where in the 66 books of the Bible do we find the Catholic doctrine of...….
PRAYERS FOR THE DEAD.

Where in the 66 books of the Bible do we find the Catholic doctrine of......
PURGATORY?

Where in the 66 books of the Bible do we find the Catholic doctrine of......
IMMACULATE CONCEPTION.

Where in the 66 books of the Bible do we find the Catholic doctrine of.....
PRAYING FOR THE DEAD.

Where in the 66 books of the Bible do we find the Catholic doctrine of …...
CELEBARCY FIR BISHOPS AND PRIESTS?

First, there are many Christians that consider a book claiming to be the bible with only 66 books is in fact not the Bilble.

Second, there are many threads that demonstrate (using scripture) the truths you list and reject.

However, I would like to take a different approach. Before you challenge anyone in the manner you did, YOU must first demonstrate that the Bible teaches that ALL matters of faith MUST be included in the Bible. So....PROVE IT!

Why do I have a sneaking suspicion that you'll address my first 2 points and skip the third.

W2L · Mar 13, 2019

Religion, ugh.

Major1 · Mar 13, 2019

concretecamper said:
First, there are many Christians that consider a book claiming to be the bible with only 66 books is in fact not the Bilble.

Second, there are many threads that demonstrate (using scripture) the truths you list and reject.

However, I would like to take a different approach. Before you challenge anyone in the manner you did, YOU must first demonstrate that the Bible teaches that ALL matters of faith MUST be included in the Bible. So....PROVE IT!

Why do I have a sneaking suspicion that you'll address my first 2 points and skip the third.

My dear friend...….I do not have to PROVE anything to YOU or anyone else. As a born again believer I live by faith and not by works or traditions.

I will however give you the Word of God. It is then up to you to accept it or reject it.

Hebrews 4:1...…….
"Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it.'

FEAR???? Fear what??

Proverbs 1:7...…..
"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction."

Common sense tells us that there are lots of things to be in fear of.
A bear breaking into your home.
A snake in your bed.
You forgot your anniversary.

Those are easy and obviouse but that is not what the Scriptures posted are talking about. There is something more important than anything else and it is the foundation of our existance and that thing is...…….

"A LACK OF DEEP STUDY AND UNDERSTANDING OF THE WORD OF GOD."

Ecclesiastes 12:13-14 clearly gets to the root of this...………...
"Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil."

The 5 examples I asked you to respond to are NOT found in the Bible at all. So instead of saying what we all know is true, and then saying....
."I accept them anyway because I am a Catholic and that is what the RCC tells us" you try and turn it into challenging me to prove something that is only found by faith in God's written Word.

That Word does not have to be proven but it does have to be accepted as the truth to be believed by FAITH.....However, every single written Word in the Bible has actually been proven to be true through the corridor of time.

Major1 · Mar 13, 2019

thecolorsblend said:
Um, you’ve heard of Confirmation, right?

I ask because your post there implies a marked lack of understanding of Confirmation.

Yes my brother, I am well aware of the RCC Confirmation process.

But are YOU aware of the term Confirmation Bias?

That is when you consciously or unconsciously internalize the information that supports your current beliefs and you reject the information that contradicts your views.

That is exactly what is being seen right here in front of the world in our conversations. The Bible says one thing and you accept what the RCC says which is NOT found in that Bible.

I don’t think you can avoid all confirmation bias because most individuals surround themselves with like-minded people which is natural and common.

When a person is surrounded by just one message, it is easy to view conflicting messages as belonging to the “lunatic fringe” - like the people who think the moon landing was staged or the world is flat or that TV’s lovable purple dinosaur character, Barney, was based on a real life serial killer.

concretecamper · Mar 13, 2019

Major1 said:
My dear friend...….I do not have to PROVE anything to YOU or anyone else

Then your assertion that every matter of faith, in order to be believed, needs to be in scripture remains your presupposition. That's fine for you, but dont hold everyone else go your man made standard.

Major1 said:
That Word does not have to be proven but it does have to be accepted as the truth to be believed by FAITH

I am NOT asking you to prove that The Word of God be accepted. But then again, I think you already know that.

Major1 · Mar 13, 2019

concretecamper said:
Then your assertion that every matter of faith, in order to be believed, needs to be in scripture remains your presupposition. That's fine for you, but dont hold everyone else go your man made standard.

I am NOT asking you to prove that The Word of God be accepted. But then again, I think you already know that.

Once again you are misstating your comment. "I" have nothing to do with what you or anyone else chooses to believe.

YOU are your own person.

YOU have made the choice to accept "MAN MADE" standards by the RCC instead of the standards that GOD has said in His Bible.

Romans 3:23...……….
"ALL have sinned and come short of the APPROVAL of God".

Now that is the fact and there is no need to argue about it. That is what you have done. I am not condemning you at all. I am simply stating what is a known fact verified by YOU!

Now listen carefully………..I DO NOT CARE that you have done. You are free to do what you want to do.

However, you can not keep railing against those who have NOT accepted the MAN MADE RCC doctrines over the Word of God. "I" ….we have the ability to make the same choices you have made and ours are just as valid.
It is just that simple!!!

You think and have accepted what the RCC has told you and I have accepted what the Bible has told me so that in fact means that "I" am NOT holding you or anyone else up to MY standard.

1 Timothy 4:6
"In pointing out these things to the brethren, you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, constantly nourished on the words of the faith and of the sound doctrine which you have been following."

John 7:16
"So Jesus answered them and said, "My teaching is not Mine, but His who sent Me."

Major1 · Mar 13, 2019

Just_a_Christian said:
I have to, respectfully, disagree. There are too many scriptures that say otherwise, a few of which I have included.

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. - Mark 16:16

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
Acts 2:38-39

And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord. -
Acts 22:16

The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: -
1 Peter 3:21

Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. -
John 3:5

Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: - Romans 6:3-5

As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him:Rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving.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.For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
Colossians 2:6-13

The thief on the cross is not applicable to us today, he died before the church began on pentecost. Even if he hadn't, Christ being God was able to forgive the sins of anyone whenevet He chose to and did multiple times.
In Him

Nothing wrong in disagreeing. It is all in how you do it and I am blessed that you did it in a very Christian manner.

We will however has to stay in disagreement on this as I do not find any Scripture when considered contextually makes the case for water baptism as a requirement or an essential to salvation.

I certainly do believe that the thief on the cross is for us today. Why would it not be.

It is a fact the action of being immersed in the water illustrates dying and being buried with Christ. The action of coming out of the water pictures Christ’s resurrection.

Requiring anything in addition to faith in Jesus Christ for salvation is a works-based salvation. To add anything to the gospel is to say that Jesus' death on the cross was not sufficient to purchase our salvation.

To say that baptism is necessary for salvation is to say we must add our own good works and obedience to Christ's death in order to make it sufficient for salvation. Jesus' death alone paid for our sins.

Rom. 5:8......
"But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.”

2 Corth. 5:21...……..
"For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him."

Jesus' payment for our sins is appropriated to our “account” by faith alone.

John 3:16
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

Therefore, baptism is an important step of obedience after salvation but cannot be a requirement for salvation.

ViaCrucis · Mar 13, 2019

Major1 said:
I do not know or understand why you used Matthew 19:14 or Jeremiah 17:9 to support the choice or will to be baptized as neither one contextually applies.

As for looking to Christ.....Absolutely agreed!

Seeing as the heart of man, his will, his emotion, his feelings, are sinful, sick, and untrustworthy we cannot trust our own will to save us or be the condition on which we are saved. Christ does not despise or deny small children and infants. When a small child or infant is brought to be baptized the grace of God is powerful to work, because it does not depend on our own sinful will and disposition, but on His own promise to us.

It's not about my will to be baptized, but God's promise.

Which is why we bring our children to be baptized. Because it's not about our will--our sinful, sick, untrustworthy fallen human will--but about God's grace alone.

This is not so much an argument for baptizing infants as it is an argument for understanding that God's grace does not depend on us. He doesn't need us in order to be kind, gracious, merciful; He doesn't need us in order to accomplish His own good work and purposes for us. He does so because He is faithful and true, not because we are.

That's why I quoted the passages I did.

-CryptoLutheran

ViaCrucis · Mar 13, 2019

Just_a_Christian said:
God has told us to do it. Whom else would we comply with? If it were not for Him and His plan of salvation plus His desire that we know it, we would know nothing of baptism. One either OBEYS righteousness or evil. There is no other option.

Yes, He has called His Church to baptize, God works through His Church to be the organ through which His Word is preached and Sacraments administered.

But our being baptized isn't about our obedience, our will, etc--it's about God's grace. That is why we bring our children to be baptized, because it isn't about our choices, our will, our ability, our power, our strength--but God's promise, God's grace and word.

If you can tell me what obedience or work the infant does when brought to the waters of Baptism, then you can begin to tell me how Baptism is an act of obedience we do for God.

-CryptoLutheran

Major1 · Mar 13, 2019

concretecamper said:
First, there are many Christians that consider a book claiming to be the bible with only 66 books is in fact not the Bilble.

Second, there are many threads that demonstrate (using scripture) the truths you list and reject.

However, I would like to take a different approach. Before you challenge anyone in the manner you did, YOU must first demonstrate that the Bible teaches that ALL matters of faith MUST be included in the Bible. So....PROVE IT!

Why do I have a sneaking suspicion that you'll address my first 2 points and skip the third.

Responding to your 3rd proposal is no more of a problem than would be the 1st two.
What you are asking about is called the "Rule of Faith."

That phrase is not found in the Bible and was 1st seen used by the early church writer named "Tertullian. He wrote a book/paper named...…."Prescription Against Heretics".

In that production he stated that the "Rule of Faith" is the set of standards that define a religion. Biblical Christianity holds the Bible up as the ONLY RULE OF FAITH.

The rule of faith may be different for different Religions even inside of Christianity itself. In some cases, the standards are similar. In others, what may seem similar actually presents a vast and significant distinction and that difference is what we are debating here.

Rules of faith in most religions rely on something other than or in addition to the Word of God, thereby denying the sufficiency of Scripture which is exactly the problem with the Catholic religion.

Since the earliest days of Christianity, this heresy has survived and flourished. The rule of faith among the Gnostics of the first century was based on the Scriptures plus a mystical knowledge gained only by those who had achieved a higher plane of enlightenment. In direct contradiction to the Word of God, the Gnostics taught that salvation comes not by grace alone through faith alone as seen in Eph. 2:8-9 but by divine knowledge or some inner light possessed only by those of elevated spirituality.

Evangelical Protestants hold to the Bible alone as their rule of faith. This reflects their belief in the doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture, which declares that the Bible alone is adequate to guide the Christian in all matters of faith and practice. According to 2 Tim. 3:16-17, the Scriptures are profitable to make the believer “thoroughly equipped for every good work.”

If we are thoroughly equipped by the Word of God, nothing more is needed. There are no degrees of “thoroughness.” To say we need something more than the Bible as a rule of faith is to say we are made “partially thoroughly” equipped by the Bible and need something more to make us “completely thoroughly” equipped.

That is my position! That is ALL I have ever said to you. If you choose to reject that, then that is just fine with me.

ViaCrucis · Mar 13, 2019

Major1 said:
Your 1st proposal is based on a false teaching that James contradicts the rest of the Bible That is simply not true.

It is however true that the same words can have different meanings. And different words can have the same meanings. This is true in the Bible as well as in all other books and conversations.

It is then up to us to dig in deeper and learn that difference. Many and it seems YOU as well believe that James contradicts Pauls teaching but that just is not the case.

James was trying to get across to his churches that Loveless faith is absolutely useless; and anybody that comes along and says "We are justified by faith alone, and so you don't have to be a loving person to go to heaven" is not telling the truth.

So James' concern is that people have real saving faith, not counterfeit faith. And the difference is that the real faith produces loving behavior.

Your next proposal is Actually it is a good question. Remember that Job is a "POETIC" book. When considering poetic books like Job, it is good practise to consider the 'objective' of the text - however you're spot-on to ask the question:
"why?" are both creatures appear at all ?

(From Why is the description of Leviathan much longer than the Behemoth's in Job?
It's worth noting that whilst the Behemoth seems like a short section compared to the Leviathan, it's still a longer section than the preceding animals, which are again smaller things. Poetically, there appears to be something of a progression from section to section, asking Job's wisdom and power over the world: nature, small animals, and then the biggest animals.

Looking at the structure of the texts, Leviathan would appear to be the climax or grand finale: "Nothing on earth is its equal." Whilst the Behemoth (whatever its identity) is certainly impressive for a land animal, it's a small fry compared to the final candidate, and anybody who has seen both will understand the tremendous difference in scale. Yahweh is making His might known by comparison to various creatures of various sizes, and it makes sense to take such a large chunk of text comparing His might to the greatest creature, rather than the smaller ones.

And of course your 3rd proposal in false as well since your description is false.

By considering the two creation accounts individually and then reconciling them, we see that God describes the sequence of creation in Gen 1, then clarifies its most important details, especially of the sixth day, in Gen. 2.

So then the bottom line is that there is no contradiction here, merely a common literary device of that day in which describing an event from the general to the specific.

So you disagree with rejecting books from the Bible simply because someone claims there are contradictions or false teaching in them?

Good, if that is the case, then maybe you can understand why your argument against the Deuterocanonicals isn't convincing. As that was my whole point being made here.

-CryptoLutheran

Major1 · Mar 13, 2019

ViaCrucis said:
Seeing as the heart of man, his will, his emotion, his feelings, are sinful, sick, and untrustworthy we cannot trust our own will to save us or be the condition on which we are saved. Christ does not despise or deny small children and infants. When a small child or infant is brought to be baptized the grace of God is powerful to work, because it does not depend on our own sinful will and disposition, but on His own promise to us.

It's not about my will to be baptized, but God's promise.

Which is why we bring our children to be baptized. Because it's not about our will--our sinful, sick, untrustworthy fallen human will--but about God's grace alone.

This is not so much an argument for baptizing infants as it is an argument for understanding that God's grace does not depend on us. He doesn't need us in order to be kind, gracious, merciful; He doesn't need us in order to accomplish His own good work and purposes for us. He does so because He is faithful and true, not because we are.

That's why I quoted the passages I did.

-CryptoLutheran

100% in agreement that man is wickedly depraved and sinful! YOU nailed it!!!

However my dear brother, there is NOT ONE single Scripture that says an infant needs to be baptized to be saved. NO NOT ONE!

ALL c=infants and mentally ill and so on are under the blood of Jesus because they are unable to CHOOSE! They are unable to BELIEVE and we must "Believe upon the Lord Jesus Christ to be saved".

Major1 · Mar 13, 2019

ViaCrucis said:
So you disagree with rejecting books from the Bible simply because someone claims there are contradictions or false teaching in them?

Good, if that is the case, then maybe you can understand why your argument against the Deuterocanonicals isn't convincing. As that was my whole point being made here.

-CryptoLutheran

NO that is not what I said.

It does not matter that some ONE claims anything at all.

Claiming something is nothing more than an opinion.

It is when the WRITTEN WORDS IN THE APOCHRAPHAIAL BOOKS CONTRADICT THE WORD OF GOD.

I would encourage you to read some of the heresies found in those production and then come back and argue for them.

Allow me to give you one example: The Book of Enoch say in 40:9-10...….
"seen and whose words I have heard and written down?’ And he said to me: ‘This first is Michael, the merciful and long-suffering: and the second, who is set over all the diseases and all the wounds of the children of men, is Raphael: and the third, who is set over all the powers, is Gabriel: and the fourth, who is set over the repentance unto hope of those who inherit eternal life, is named Phanuel.’
And these are the four angels of the Lord of Spirits and the four voices I heard in those days. "

Where in the Bible is the angel and PHANUEL found???????

The Bible never mentions an angel named Phanuel, or Raphael, let alone an angel who is set over the repentance of those who inherit eternal life. That my dear brother is blasphemy! That statement in itself contradicts everything the Word of God teaches.

Remember, YOU are the one argueing FOR the acceptance of these Apocryphal productions.

We read in 1st Timothy 2:5 that Jesus Christ is the ONLY Mediator between God and men, not some angel named Phanuel... "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus."

Repentance is strictly between a man and Jesus Christ alone. Only Jesus died for our sins, and shed His blood to pay for them (1st Peter 1:18-19).

ViaCrucis · Mar 13, 2019

Major1 said:
100% in agreement that man is wickedly depraved and sinful! YOU nailed it!!!

However my dear brother, there is NOT ONE single Scripture that says an infant needs to be baptized to be saved. NO NOT ONE!

ALL c=infants and mentally ill and so on are under the blood of Jesus because they are unable to CHOOSE! They are unable to BELIEVE and we must "Believe upon the Lord Jesus Christ to be saved".

Claiming that infants and the mentally ill are incapable of faith is both to deny the power of God and His ability to work His works for all--including the sick, the young, the old, etc. But in denying the power of God's grace you have instead created your own doctrines which Scripture never even comes close to suggesting or saying.

You want to make the power of the human will what ultimately saves us, rather than God's grace. But since it is God's grace, not our will, and God who acts through His Means of Word and Sacrament, then all are included regardless of intellect, will, strength of reason, or any such thing. God, who desires that none should perish but all have life, is capable of working through His own means to accomplish His own purposes--and what is His purpose? That we have faith in Christ, and have our life in Him. God is quite capable of accomplishing this good for us, and He does, He has promised to do so.

-CryptoLutheran

ViaCrucis · Mar 13, 2019

Major1 said:
NO that is not what I said.

It does not matter that some ONE claims anything at all.

Claiming something is nothing more than an opinion.

It is when the WRITTEN WORDS IN THE APOCHRAPHAIAL BOOKS CONTRADICT THE WORD OF GOD.

I would encourage you to read some of the heresies found in those production and then come back and argue for them.

Allow me to give you one example: The Book of Enoch say in 40:9-10...….
"seen and whose words I have heard and written down?’ And he said to me: ‘This first is Michael, the merciful and long-suffering: and the second, who is set over all the diseases and all the wounds of the children of men, is Raphael: and the third, who is set over all the powers, is Gabriel: and the fourth, who is set over the repentance unto hope of those who inherit eternal life, is named Phanuel.’
And these are the four angels of the Lord of Spirits and the four voices I heard in those days. "

Where in the Bible is the angel and PHANUEL found???????

The Bible never mentions an angel named Phanuel, or Raphael, let alone an angel who is set over the repentance of those who inherit eternal life. That my dear brother is blasphemy! That statement in itself contradicts everything the Word of God teaches.

Remember, YOU are the one argueing FOR the acceptance of these Apocryphal productions.

We read in 1st Timothy 2:5 that Jesus Christ is the ONLY Mediator between God and men, not some angel named Phanuel... "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus."

Repentance is strictly between a man and Jesus Christ alone. Only Jesus died for our sins, and shed His blood to pay for them (1st Peter 1:18-19).

Enoch isn't one of the Deuterocanonical books. You are confusing the Deuterocanonical books with "apocrypha", which is a generic term for all kinds of works that were never accepted by the Church as Scripture, some benign and some heretical.

If Tobit is Scripture then it's right there in Tobit that Raphael is mentioned.

Let's try again to help you understand.

Let's pretend that I don't think Luke or Daniel should be in the Bible. And I present the following:

Luke 1:19 says
"And the angel answered him, 'I am Gabriel. I stand in the presence of God, and I was sent to speak to you and to bring you this good news.'"

Where in the Bible is Gabriel mentioned?

Gabriel is no where mentioned in the Bible, therefore Luke and Daniel do not belong in the Bible.

-CryptoLutheran

Just_a_Christian · Mar 13, 2019

ViaCrucis said:
Yes, He has called His Church to baptize, God works through His Church to be the organ through which His Word is preached and Sacraments administered.

But our being baptized isn't about our obedience, our will, etc--it's about God's grace. That is why we bring our children to be baptized, because it isn't about our choices, our will, our ability, our power, our strength--but God's promise, God's grace and word.

If you can tell me what obedience or work the infant does when brought to the waters of Baptism, then you can begin to tell me how Baptism is an act of obedience we do for God.

-CryptoLutheran

Nowhere in God's word does He authorize or command that infants be baptized. In fact Jesus said unless we become as little children we will not enter the kingdom of heaven.
And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. - Matthew 18:3
Infants and little children are free from sin and have no need to be baptized.
When you say He commands His church, you have this false conception about the church.
In the New Testament each church is completely autonomous in nature, each church having it's own bishops/elders and deacons. The churches also only had one priest, that being Jesus. It is clear, from the epistles and from the warnings in Revelation, each church was responsible for it's own spiritual health. If there are 2 or 3 people who begin studying God's word and they have faith in Jesus as the risen son of God, they confess, repent and be are baptised in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, for the remission of sins, then those three people constitute a congregation of the Lord's church. They then should continue to grow spiritually and evangelism is included in such. All a congregation of the Lord's church needs is the Word and people who have been added to the Body by God...man has no say. Thanks be to God that the ground at the foot of the cross is level. No one, no one group of people can have a stranglehold on Christianity. The Lord's church is comprised of saints who have already passed and living people today that are following (which by the way is another word for obeying) God's will. It has nothing to do with the name on the door, except to say the name should pay homage to who made salvation possible.
Why do you suppose the footprint or organization of the New Testament church was changed around 300 AD? Even though that wasn't the first step leading to the falling away described by Paul in 2 Thessalonians.
In Him

concretecamper · Mar 13, 2019

Major1 said:
If we are thoroughly equipped by the Word of God, nothing more is needed. There are no degrees of “thoroughness.” To say we need something more than the Bible as a rule of faith is to say we are made “partially thoroughly” equipped by the Bible and need something more to make us “completely thoroughly” equipped.

Major1 said:
That is ALL I have ever said to you. If you choose to reject that, then that is just fine with

No, this is the first time you answered my question.

I see Paul's letter to Timothy quoted many times while defending your position. Do you realize when this letter was written, what was considered scripture was the Tanakh?

So based on your answer, your rule of faith is based exclusively on the Tanakh. Very interesting.

Just_a_Christian · Mar 13, 2019

The New Testament church had the Tanakh, from which we have the Christian Old Testament and they had the epistles as they came along. There is proof from God's word that the New Testament church exchanged the epistles among the different congregations, at least to some degree...if not totally to the best of their ability.
In Him

concretecamper · Mar 13, 2019

Just_a_Christian said:
The New Testament church had the Tanakh, from which we have the Christian Old Testament and they had the epistles as they came along. There is proof from God's word that the New Testament church exchanged the epistles among the different congregations, at least to some degree...if not totally to the best of their ability.
In Him

The NT Church exchanged many letters. Many letters that didnt make it into the NT were read at the Divine Liturgy. There is no debate about it.

But the question remains....when Paul's letter to Timothy was written, what was defined as scripture? The answer is the Tanakh.

Just_a_Christian · Mar 13, 2019

concretecamper said:
The NT Church exchanged many letters. Many letters that didnt make it into the NT were read at the Divine Liturgy. There is no debate about it.

But the question remains....when Paul's letter to Timothy was written, what was defined as scripture? The answer is the Tanakh.

Maybe by a "strick" definition of the word, but the congregations were (or should have been) attempting to conform to the epistles. How they ought to behave...
Does the Bible tell one how to become a Christian? Does the Bible inform the humble Christian how to be pleasing to God?
Yes to both and therefore nothing else is needed.
In Him

Catechism of the Catholic Church--A great resource for everyone

Member of His Church

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member of His Church

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Confessional Lutheran

Confessional Lutheran

Well-Known Member

Confessional Lutheran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Confessional Lutheran

Confessional Lutheran

Active Member

Member of His Church

Active Member

Member of His Church

Active Member

Similar threads