Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Are you saying that the verses cited* are not Sacred Scripture? How did you determine this, if so?Yes, how DO you know those are Sacred Scripture? Where is the table of contents, in the Bible?
Did Jesus quote from the scriptures? Did Jesus know what the scriptures were in his days upon earth as man?I see. I can point back to Councils where the canon was discussed and ultimately agreed upon by men who feared for their souls if they were wrong and thus undertook the endeavor with the utmost seriousness before reaching their conclusions.
But you have faith, that's nice.
Not all of them.Did Jesus quote from the scriptures?
Whether He did or whether He didn't, He never laid out a comprehensive list of what is and is not OT canon.Did Jesus know what the scriptures were in his days upon earth as man?
Faith is obedience.Yes, indeed, the Just shall live by Faith, even as Adam had to live by Faith that Jesus created Him.
Miles apart are EO and RC. Papacy come to mind?Actually, I don't believe that the EO and the Catholic Church are that far apart on Tradition.
Tradition is provable.
How can we test Scripture?
Perhaps He did in commenting on the blood of prophets from Abel to Zechariah (IMO the last of the prophets along with Malachi). There were no prophets until fulfillment of Malachi's prophecy: John the Baptist (forerunner).He never laid out a comprehensive list of what is and is not OT canon.
Well I have made points and counter arguments in the discussion. You provided a smart alec comment.Take your own advice.
Why are you ignoring the division within the catholic church itself especially fiven the passage you quoted clearly talked about the same church not between different groups. It was people in the same congregation. Stop ignoring it. Or just admit that ok that argument was a poor one and you shouldn't have used it and edit your post and leave the other points.Well, the division is, mostly, Protestant from Catholic, and the bad fruit, we would say, is the Protestant debarkation from Sacred Tradition.
You can make this excuse all you like but when you have a practice going for over two thousand years and nobody says one word against it then sorry but it is safe to say it is doctrine.Practices are completely different from doctrine, as I've been pointing out.
Well I must admit the whole idea of getting married sounds good if there was the traditional honeymoon period that existed in biblical times. One year off would be great!So why not do away with the ceremony most people go through to get married???
Once again, you're referring to a stereotype of Sola Scriptura that's been fed to people by churches that reject Sola Scriptura. That's not Sola Scriptura itself.That, of course, raises the question of how the Law, the Wisdom Literature and the entire New Testament could fit in absent the authority of a council. But you guys have faith, which is nice.
I know how Sacred Scripture was determined. I asked you how you think it's determined.Are you saying that the verses cited* are not Sacred Scripture? How did you determine this, if so?
* - http://www.christianforums.com/thre...-not-sufficient.7906273/page-66#post-68726286
I might recommend to you, for a table of contents [Jesus said, "law of Moses", "prophets", "psalms", in regards the OT], discussion [but I could see how some may not desire to]:
Only in your mind.Miles apart are EO and RC. Papacy come to mind?
Tradition is in line with Sacred Scripture. That's how it's proven.Tradition is not provable because it was, for the most part, unwritten or melded from outside sources.
You're the folks who say that Scripture can be tested. I asked how. Please answer, I'm really wanting to know. How do you test Scripture?Test NT scripture for what? It was handed down as divine (see your catechism and Athanasius). And you know from past conversations with me the meaning of the renaming of the sons of Zebedee (first and last apostles to die, between which the NT was written and IMO assembled, sons of Thunder, but not everyone agrees).
I do not ignore the divisions within the Catholic Church. The devil constantly scatters the sheep by isolating the shepherd. There's many divisions, but Catholic doctrine is not one of them. Those who disagree with it are simply not "Catholic". Just as the disciples fell away when Jesus said they must eat His flesh and drink His blood.Why are you ignoring the division within the catholic church itself especially fiven the passage you quoted clearly talked about the same church not between different groups. It was people in the same congregation. Stop ignoring it. Or just admit that ok that argument was a poor one and you shouldn't have used it and edit your post and leave the other points.
Practices are not divinely inspired. What practice has been going on over 2000 years that you consider wrong? (By the way, you just admitted that the Catholic Church is the Church Christ founded...)You can make this excuse all you like but when you have a practice going for over two thousand years and nobody says one word against it then sorry but it is safe to say it is doctrine.
We're talking about ceremony.Well I must admit the whole idea of getting married sounds good if there was the traditional honeymoon period that existed in biblical times. One year off would be great!
I do not ignore the divisions within the Catholic Church. The devil constantly scatters the sheep by isolating the shepherd. There's many divisions, but Catholic doctrine is not one of them. Those who disagree with it are simply not "Catholic". Just as the disciples fell away when Jesus said they must eat His flesh and drink His blood.
Practices are not divinely inspired. What practice has been going on over 2000 years that you consider wrong? (By the way, you just admitted that the Catholic Church is the Church Christ founded...)
We're talking about ceremony.
It's not a slippery slope at all. Anyone who dissents from any Catholic doctrine separates himself from the totality of Catholicism. Me included. We strive, and persist, but we ultimately fail. As Jesus said, for mankind, it is impossible, but for God, all things are possible. Even Popes, while saying they agree totally with the teaching of the Church, have a hard time implementing that. That's why even Popes go to confession, Pope Francis says he goes every two weeks or so. The teachings of Christ are perfect, nonetheless, and this is, we believe, the Catholic Church.I hope you understand what a slippery slope you have set up. It is a very rare Catholic that I have met who actually believes each and every doctrine ever believed and taught by the Catholic Church. In fact, now that I think of it, I have yet to meet a Catholic who meets those qualifications. Thus, there may well be no Catholics in this world with the possible exception of the Pope.
It's not a slippery slope at all. Anyone who dissents from any Catholic doctrine separates himself from the totality of Catholicism. Me included. We strive, and persist, but we ultimately fail. As Jesus said, for mankind, it is impossible, but for God, all things are possible. Even Popes, while saying they agree totally with the teaching of the Church, have a hard time implementing that. That's why even Popes go to confession, Pope Francis says he goes every two weeks or so. The teachings of Christ are perfect, nonetheless, and this is, we believe, the Catholic Church.
God is merciful, and allows those who strive with their whole hearts, even though they fail. We're members by God's grace, not our own.Ah, it seems that you have now described an invisible church composed of non-members who cannot attain to membership.
The problem is, Roman Catholicism, takes some statements in John 6, and literalizes it/them [along with Mt 26:16; Mk 14:22; Lk 22:19; 1 Cr 11:24], which is exactly the problem the pharisees/scribes were continually doing to Jesus' words [not only in the Gospel of John, but in the others also], and misunderstanding them, thus abusing them to their own destruction. Many examples of this can be shown in demonstration, even in which John 6 is encompassed....Those who disagree with it are simply not "Catholic". Just as the disciples fell away when Jesus said they must eat His flesh and drink His blood. ...
God is merciful, and allows those who strive with their whole hearts, even though they fail. We're members by God's grace, not our own.
Really? How do you say it is determined, please explain, and then demonstrate why that decision/process was valid, and by what standard of measurement it is validated by?I know how Sacred Scripture was determined.
John 9:27 KJB - He answered them, I have told you already, and ye did not hear: wherefore would ye hear [it] again? will ye also be his disciples?I asked you how you think it's determined.
Did you even read the material presented in the links provided?You can recommend, but there was no table of contents.
Like a mindless mantra, you say, but have no demonstration in fact, and cannot, as it has never been done, and will never be done. Bold statement, but easily refuted by simply producing the evidence, and the validation for that evidence, and the standard of measurement for that evidence. I [we all] await it. Since you made the statement, stating as 'fact', the burden is upon you.The Catholic Church determined what constitutes the Bible.
Again, the same repeated vain claptrap, all without substance and teeth. Sounding brass, tinkling cymbal. Vain jangling. Verily as rattling bones that turn over in the grave, falling over in decay, though having no life, move in crumbling in their return to their dust.There was no hebrew canon until there was a Christian (Catholic) Canon.
Yes indeed. It sure is a good thing it took over 1800 years for the Adventists to come along and finally get the Bible right, eh? Eh, Acts24Fourteen? Eh?The problem is, Roman Catholicism, takes some statements in John 6, and literalizes it/them [along with Mt 26:16; Mk 14:22; Lk 22:19; 1 Cr 11:24], which is exactly the problem the pharisees/scribes were continually doing to Jesus' words [not only in the Gospel of John, but in the others also],
Really? Because the text and the people both say they departed because of their literal understanding of Our Lord's teaching and their inability to accept it.Those disciples who fell away [John 6:66] did not do so, because they were refusing what Roman Catholicism perceives as the precursor to its blasphemous transubstantiation mystagogy, but because they refused to accept, by faith, Jesus as the Messiah/Christ sent of God, who has the words/way of eternal Life brought down from the Father. They wanted a sign in demonstration, not faith in His word.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?