• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.

Featured Catholics, what exactly do you believe about Mary?

Discussion in 'Denomination Specific Theology' started by melody5697, May 22, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Major1

    Major1 Well-Known Member

    +2,376
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    You said..........
    "in Matthew 28:19-20, "Go, therefore and make disciples of ALL nations...teaching them to observe ALL that I have commanded you; And behold, I am with you ALL days, even unto the consummation of the world."

    That is a statement of Universality, Katholicos, Catholicus, Catholic.

    NO IT IS NOT! It is called the "Great Commission.".

    It was not given to me or to you or the Catholic church. It was given to the ELEVEN Apostles.

    Matthew 28:16-20.........
    "Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had appointed for them. When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some doubted. And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.
     
  2. Major1

    Major1 Well-Known Member

    +2,376
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    My friend...............I am still here waiting for you to post those comments #'s that you said or at least an explination why you would lie about me and what I did not say.
     
  3. FenderTL5

    FenderTL5 Well-Known Member Supporter

    +3,851
    United States
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    US-American-Solidarity
    Just curious, do you have any corroboration for this comment other than the blog/page you've been quoting? I looked/searched and I found a couple of references to so-called scholars claiming the Apostle Paul was a fabrication (in totality), making all of his letters spurious. Otherwise, only one smalltime blogger questioning Eusebius' lack of written source in his third century history which supports Timothy as the first Bishop in Ephesus, sent/appointed by Paul. I'd tend to think if it were 'most scholars' opinion, then it would be more prevalent. Even wikipedia does NOT mention any controversy on Timothy's role in Ephesus. That Paul instructed Timothy to do things the Bishop does is Bible.. it's in his letters.
    You may need to get a new Bible because the one you're using would appear to be defective.
     
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2017
  4. kepha31

    kepha31 Regular Member

    +582
    Catholic
    In Relationship
    It would have been redundant for Jesus to say "I will build my Church." "Catholic" is not the name of a denomination but one of four divine characteristics: One, Holy, Universal (Catholic) and Apostolic. That would have been too much for the Apostles to take in at that time, so Jesus just said " I will build my church". What Jesus meant was not questioned by any one for 1500 years.

    The Bible repeatedly teaches that the Church is indefectible; therefore, the hypothetical of rejecting the (one true, historic) Church, as supposedly going against the Bible, is impossible according to the Bible. It is not a situation that would ever come up, because of God’s promised protection.

    What the Bible says is to reject those who cause divisions, which is the very essence of the onset of Protestantism: schism, sectarianism, and division. It is Protestantism that departed from the historic Church, which is indefectible and infallible (see also 1 Tim 3:15).


    [​IMG]
     
  5. bbbbbbb

    bbbbbbb Well-Known Member

    +9,608
    Non-Denom
    I find it curious that you would make the case for Eastern Orthodoxy. Substitute the fact that the Roman Church was the cause of the Great Schism and I think we can close the case for Eastern Orthodoxy.
     
  6. kepha31

    kepha31 Regular Member

    +582
    Catholic
    In Relationship
    In post #999 I gave Matthew 28:9-20 as an inference and Romans 1:8 and Acts 9:31 as supporting proof text using Greek words for the term "Catholic".

    The Church encourages us to study and interpret Bible so that is an anti-Catholic myth. We have parameters the same as any church. Sola scriptura means ripping the Bible from the Tradition that produced it in the first place. It's illogical and contradictory.

    How many references did Jesus make to the New Testament? Of course there are instances in the Bible where Our Lord does appeal to Scripture, but in these cases He, as one having authority, was teaching the Scriptures; He was not allowing the Scriptures to teach themselves. For example, He would respond to the Scribes and the Pharisees by using Scripture precisely because they often tried to trip Him up by using Scripture. In these instances, Our Lord often demonstrates how the Scribes and Pharisees had wrong interpretations, and hence He corrects them by properly interpreting Scripture.

    There are several ways to demonstrate that 1 Corinthians 4:6 can't rescue sola scriptura from the realm of myth. First, note that none of the Reformers attempted to use this verse to vindicate sola scriptura. In fact, John Calvin says Paul's use of the phrase "what is written" is probably either a reference to the Old Testament verses he quotes within his epistle or to the epistle itself (Commentary on 1 Corinthians 4:6).

    Some commentators see in 1 Corinthians 4:6 an allusion to "what is written" in the Book of Life (Ex. 32:32-33, Rev. 20:12). This is quite possibly what Paul had in mind, since the context of 1 Corinthians 4:1-5 is divine judgment (when the Book of Life will be opened and scrutinized). He admonishes the Corinthians against speculating about how people will be judged, leaving it up to "what has been written" in the Book of Life. Although that interpretation of the text is a possibility, being consistent with the rest of Scripture, it is by no means certain.

    Not only did Calvin not see in 1 Corinthians any support for sola scriptura, a theory he vociferously promoted, he regarded the verse as obscure at best and of negligible value in the effort to vindicate Protestantism.

    What is certain is that Paul, in saying, "do not go beyond what is written," was not teaching sola scriptura. If he had, he would have been advocating one of four principles, which are inconsistent with the rest of his theology:
    (1) Accept as authoritative only the Old Testament writings;
    (2) accept as authoritative only the Old Testament writings and the New Testament writings penned as of the date Paul wrote 1 Corinthians (circa A.D. 56);
    (3) accept as authoritative orally transmitted doctrine only until it has been reduced to writing (scripture) and only while the apostles are alive, then disregard all oral tradition and adhere only to what is written; or
    (4) the most extreme position, accept as authoritative only doctrine that has been reduced to writing.

    The difficulties with these options are immediately clear. No Protestant would agree with option one, that the Old Testament is a sufficient authority in matters of doctrine. Nor would he accept , for this would mean all New Testament books written after the year 56 would not qualify under the 1 Corinthians 4:6 guideline. Hence, John's Gospel, Acts, Romans, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, Titus, 1 & 2 Timothy, Hebrews, James, 1 & 2 Peter, 1, 2, & 3 John, Jude, and Revelation would all have to be jettisoned as non-authoritative...

    And then there's that small matter of the unity of doctrine among the apostles. If Paul had been promulgating sola scriptura in 1 Corinthians 4 he would have been in conflict with the practice of the rest of the apostles. Most of the apostles never wrote a single line of Scripture; . the deposit of faith orally. Did their oral teachings carry any less weight of authority than the written teachings of Paul or Peter or John?
    Going Beyond | Catholic Answers
    Catholics accept the material sufficiency of scripture, no problem. The difference between material and formal sufficieny here is between a blueprint to make a building, and the bricks of which the building is made. A merely materially sufficient Scripture is like a pile of bricks that can build anything from a cathedral to a tool shed, but the bricks themselves possess no inherent intelligibility (formal sufficiency) in one direction for another. The intelligibility derives from outside the bricks.

    Conversely, a blueprint is inherently intelligible, and thus has not material but formal sufficiency to create a specific building, whether cathedral or tool shed.

    In terms of development, the claim that Scripture is materially sufficient presumes that the intelligibility of revelation derives from elsewhere than Scripture itself. A definitive magisterium (or external tradition) is necessary to decide what to do with the bricks. Without the magisterium it is impossible to know whether the bricks were intended to be a cathedral or a tool shed.The distinction here makes all the difference in the world. From a Protestant point of view, anything less than formal sufficiency is unacceptable and will render Sola Scriptura impossible. On the flip side, the Catholic has no problem affirming the material sufficiency of Scripture (i.e. all necessary information is at least implicit in Scripture), since it in no way rules out the need for a Magisterium - and indeed demands one!

    This is important to keep in mind because it makes the Protestant task of proving Sola Scriptura from the Bible more difficult and uncomfortable. It is not enough for the Protestant to point to a text that says how good or useful or inspired Scripture is, since the material sufficiency gladly embraces all this. The Protestant must show that Scripture formally and clearly lays out Christian teaching in such a way that no Magisterium or Tradition is needed, and in fact must show that the Magisterium and Tradition dont exist in the first place (or wont exist at some future date).

    What is also important to point out is that the great majority of Scripture is not written down in any "blueprint" sense such that the Inspired human writer was laying down a systematic treatment of doctrines. In other words, the Bible is not written like a text book or even a 'do it yourself' self-help book. This is a major difficulty for the Protestant seeking to prove formal sufficiency.
    NICK'S CATHOLIC BLOG: Sola Scriptura: Formal versus Material Sufficiency


    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Jul 6, 2017
  7. kepha31

    kepha31 Regular Member

    +582
    Catholic
    In Relationship
    You are an expert on the Great Schism? Can you provide a scholarly source that supports your one sided blaming?
    At least the Orthodox and Catholics are negotiating. I recommend you do some reading, get up to speed on recent events in order to contribute something worthwhile.
    Eastern Orthodoxy & Catholicism (Index Page)


    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Jul 6, 2017
  8. kepha31

    kepha31 Regular Member

    +582
    Catholic
    In Relationship
    Just quote what he said instead of complaining about him not using the quote feature. (will ironies ever cease?)
    I am still waiting for an answer to my question: (third time)
    What verse gives a list of books belonging in the Bible?
    That's a bigger problem for you than fussing over what somebody may or may not have said 3 pages ago. That may be why you are avoiding it.
     
  9. Goatee

    Goatee Jesus, please forgive me, a sinner.

    +3,559
    United Kingdom
    Catholic
    Divorced
    Lol
     
  10. Goatee

    Goatee Jesus, please forgive me, a sinner.

    +3,559
    United Kingdom
    Catholic
    Divorced
    Another lol.....

    You will do anything to 'try' and beat the truth :doh:
     
  11. Goatee

    Goatee Jesus, please forgive me, a sinner.

    +3,559
    United Kingdom
    Catholic
    Divorced
    You have said many times that you take the Bible literally. You disagree with Sacred Tradition. So, this means that once your Bible is closed shut the Holy Spirit ceases to teach, ceases to reveal etc etc.
     
  12. Goatee

    Goatee Jesus, please forgive me, a sinner.

    +3,559
    United Kingdom
    Catholic
    Divorced
    And the Apostles were?

    Correct! The very first of the Catholic Church! From them comes the early days of the Catholic Church. SACRED TRADITION!!!! :clap::clap::clap::clap:
     
  13. Goatee

    Goatee Jesus, please forgive me, a sinner.

    +3,559
    United Kingdom
    Catholic
    Divorced
    I am amazed at major1s confusion of scripture. He claims he knows it when it is clear he does not. He thinks he knows it.

    He just likes to 'try' and explain away any Catholic teaching.

    Doesn't matter how much he is shown, be it scriptural or other sources, he still won't accept the evidence.

    Majore1. A very good read for you sir:

    The Scott Hahn Conversion Story
     
  14. kepha31

    kepha31 Regular Member

    +582
    Catholic
    In Relationship
    It's curious that you would reject the plain meaning of"ALL" as an indicator of the universal Church, run from explicit proof text for KATAHOLIS in Romans 1:8 and Acts 9:31, assert that "Catholic" is not in the Bible after the opposite has been demonstrated, now you say Matthew 28:19-20 is the Great Commission (which I agree with), but "Great Commission" is not in Scripture, it's a chapter heading. You impose a double standard.

    The ELEVEN Apostles are the Teaching Authority which translates to Magisterium. The Jews had a type of magisterium that Jesus called "The Seat of Moses" but you won't find a cross reference to the OT because it is a Tradition.

    All authority ...all the nations...observe all things..."

    You don't think "all" suggests "universal"? If not, does it suggest anything?

    “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore...

    Thayer's Greek Lexicon
    STRONGS NT 3767: οὖν


    Therefore (οὖν) a conjunction indicating that something follows from another necessarily; (others regard the primary force of the particle as confirmatory or continuative, rather than illative (rather than stating an inference)

    Jesus does not separate His authority from the Magisterium, or the 11. The word "therefore" doesn't allow it. In other words, the Church is Jesus on earth.

    How could the Apostles make disciples of all nations while traveling the globe on foot? Did they use planes and helicoptors? Were they disobedient to Jesus' command? Or is apostolic succession required to reach all nations over centuries?
    Malachi 1:11
    For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is great among the nations, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering; for my name is great among the nations, says the Lord of hosts.

    What is a "pure offering"?


    "...and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”

    If the CC "fell away" as is asserted by many Protestants, when did this monumentous event take place that no one noticed until the middle of a revolt in the 16th century? Alternate question: what year did Jesus violate His promise to never leave us?

    For the 4th time (or 5th, I am losing count) :
    What verse lists the books belonging in the Bible?


    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2017
  15. Major1

    Major1 Well-Known Member

    +2,376
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    If my Bible is defective which of course IT can not be as it is the Perfect Word of God, maybe YOU can now post the Scriptures which would validate an apostle AFTER John.

    Please go ahead and post the Scriptures which validate Apostolic succession.
     
  16. Major1

    Major1 Well-Known Member

    +2,376
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    I hate to do this but it is necessary for me. You have distorted my words, you have out right told untruths and said things that I DID NOT say or even suggest. You have refused to explain your actions and you in your arrogance have not apologized for your actions.

    Because of those things I can no long respond to your posts. The comment you just made right here again is an opinion and has no truth in at all. I will not continue to go back and forth with you debating things that were never said and when you were asked to produce what I said, your response is...........
    "You have said many times that you take the Bible literally. You disagree with Sacred Tradition. So, this means that once your Bible is closed shut the Holy Spirit ceases to teach, ceases to reveal etc etc".

    YOU have ruined your testimony as a Christian and have tainted the fact that you are a Catholic believer.

    You be blessed and I do hope that you will grow and learn to be more civil and truthful in your future conversations.
     
  17. Major1

    Major1 Well-Known Member

    +2,376
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    "ALL" certainly means the whole world or in my opinion it does. But once again, can you show me where in those verses are the words...."START THE CATHOLIC CHURCH".

    You surely want it to be there but all anyone has to do is read those words and see that CATHOLIC CHURCH is not there my dear friend.

    "The ELEVEN were commissioned by Jesus to spread the gospel to the world so that the world could be saved.

    John 3:16.....
    " For God so love the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

    Your thinking would have us to believe that it was the Catholic church that was given to save the world and not the Lord Jesus Christ.

    But again, you are free to believe as you wish to.
     
  18. Major1

    Major1 Well-Known Member

    +2,376
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    I DID QUOTE WHAT HE SAID.. Didn't you read it????

    And what would you say and do if I said those things about YOU.
     
  19. Major1

    Major1 Well-Known Member

    +2,376
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    Is sarcasm a personal thing or is it just one of those things that all Catholic believers do when they can not answer a question civilly.
     
  20. kepha31

    kepha31 Regular Member

    +582
    Catholic
    In Relationship
    We are all at various stages in our apologetic development. Goatee is trying to say is that Tradition doesn't supplant, over-ride, or contradict the Bible because they both come from the same divine wellspring. I do not agree with his awkward wording.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...