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.
Forget about the differences of Protestant and Catholic thinking, my only thinking is, "does it line up with Scripture?" The Scripture is the one thing I know for a fact to be true, so anyone who claims anything else about God, if it does not like up with Scripture, then I'll disregard it.I think what we are encountering is the difference between Protestant thinking and Catholic teaching. We believe that the holy Church (which Paul has called the pillar of truth) is the vehicle through which the Holy Spirit reveals himself, so that all those councils of bishops, including the ones that compiled and canonized the Scriptures we now have and who wrote the Creeds that we profess have not been the mere traditions of men, but are what consists of the sacred Tradition, AS DIRECED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT. I also observe that you are very bright and that I am not going to convince you of anything you don't want to be convinced of. I don't like to pursue the mentality that one of us must be proven "wrong". (That's no way to win anybody over anyway.) I simply reiterate the fact that we represent two different ways of thinking about the faith we share in common.
So you don't need the Holy Spirit to guide you to/through scripture because that would be something else
Forget MY reading of it, READ what Scripture says.Yes, I accept that's your reading of it.
At some point, you'll come to understand what circular logic mean.Circular logic doesn't appeal to me.
By the way, who's your bishop?
Except really! And there you were saying you didn't just confine Jesus to a book, now you're back against that. It would also help if you could choose an argument and stick with it.Except not really...
And yet the Ethiopian asked a deacon for helpThe Holy Spirit wrote it through inspired men, and He helps us UNDERSTAND it just as we are told He would as said by 1 Corinthians 2.
So for you Jesus exists only to the extent of what is written. You for instance can't say he ever smiled, because it's not written and therefore you'd never be able to experience that, even if you eventually meet him... because if you experienced it, and it's not written then it's going 'beyond the bible'.Something else is adding another book and saying "hey, this too are God's word".
It would also help, if you would make your arguments clear and not muddle others. PROVE to me that I just confined Jesus to a book. You want to know why that would be hard? Because I was speaking about the Holy Spirit helping us UNDERSTAND Scripture NOT saying that Jesus was confined to a book.And so we go in circles
Except really! And there you were saying you didn't just confine Jesus to a book, now you're back against that. It would also help if you could choose an argument and stick with it.
The Ethiopian most certainly asked Phillip to help him understanding it and because Philip was moved by the Holy Spirit so He taught the Ethiopian. Guess what? we have the Scripture of what was said. I am not arguing that man do not have the authority to teach Scripture, I'm arguing that Scripture has the authority and we must teach what's in it and if someone claims that something else is "God's word too" it must not contradict.And yet the Ethiopian asked a deacon for help
I'm not going through this argument again with you. If you want to continue believing that we're speaking about "experiencing Jesus" as per Scripture, you can continue to believe so, just so you know that will be your stumbling block when it comes to why protestants believe in Scripture.So you can only experience Jesus to the limit of what the bible says.
No, just no. Your theory about why we believe Scripture so much is false and your premise is getting worse.That's like having a marriage where you choose only to experience life with your partner by what you read about him/her because anything else such as actually feeling an emotion goes beyond what is written
What in the world?So for you Jesus exists only to the extent of what is written. You for instance can't say he ever smiled, because it's not written and therefore you'd never be able to experience that, even if you eventually meet him.
I don't use the term "Trinity", I use the term "Godhead" as said in Romans 1:20 and Colossians 2:9 and you most certainly can prove it through Scripture. If I used the term "Trinity" it's only because of the target audience who understand that term to mean "Godhead". I know I've spoken about that topic often, but as for discussing that topic here, would be too much as I have to go to work soon.If you can tell me, by the Bible alone which formula of the Trinity to use.
The fact the word Trinity is absent is 'going beyond' it.
Please tell me which of these best describes the Trinity (using the bible only)
He's never said to smile in the bible therefore you can never experience this because it's not written. That's what YOU said. You can't go beyond what it says.It would also help, if you would make your arguments clear and not muddle others. PROVE to me that I just confined Jesus to a book.
That's not so. It simply tells us what he was reading and that Phillip told him the good newsGuess what? we have the Scripture of what was said.
Based on circular logic.I am not arguing that man do not have the authority to teach Scripture, I'm arguing that Scripture has the authority and we must teach what's in it and if someone claims that something else is "God's word too" it must not contradict.
What did Phillip teach the Ethiopian?And you can say "well the men of the bible were not teaching what was in Scripture because Scripture was yet to be written" and you know I'll just say what I've always said, "Scripture was lived before it was written." It was still Scripture whether it was oral or written.
I am going by what you saidI'm not going through this argument again with you. If you want to continue believing that we're speaking about "experiencing Jesus" as per Scripture, you can continue to believe so, just so you know that will be your stumbling block when it comes to why protestants believe in Scripture.
I'm going by what you saidNo, just no. Your theory about why we believe Scripture so much is false and your premise is getting worse.
Show me the list of human emotions in the bible. Anything else is 'adding to the bible'What in the world?
Why would I take away human emotions away from Christ?
I don't use the term "Trinity", I use the term "Godhead" as said in Romans 1:20 and Colossians 2:9 and you most certainly can prove it through Scripture. If I used the term "Trinity" it's only because of the target audience who understand that term to mean "Godhead". I know I've spoken about that topic often, but as for discussing that topic here, would be too much as I have to go to work soon.
This is the very thing I don't understand about your logic. You're so stuck on the idea that we don't "go beyond what is written" as meaning we think that Christ was a stoic Being doing nothing else but what Scripture has said... We don't suspend logic because Scripture doesn't write about Christ's emotions all that often.He's never said to smile in the bible therefore you can never experience this because it's not written. That's what YOU said. You can't go beyond what it says.
And what is the good news or shall I say the gospel?That's not so. It simply tells us what he was reading and that Phillip told him the good news
What did Phillip teach the Ethiopian?
You're going by what you think I said and that's what's confusing you.I am going by what you said
I'm going by what you said
Do you not know how to do a word search in Scripture?Show me the list of human emotions in the bible. Anything else is 'adding to the bible'
And if you read my answer you would know that I don't have time too.Doesn't answer my question
You do realize that you're the one bringing this stuff up.Now we get into the 'Oh yes, Jesus must have smiled, I'll believe he did, even though it's not written'
You keep making up false arguments for why Protestants hold Scripture so dear--first it was the false idea of "experiencing Jesus" and now "Jesus doesn't smile, can't go beyond what is written"-- and then you rationalize it in your head that you're so clever to avoid these types of false arguments that you yourself created as if to say that this is what protestants truly believe. That is your circular reasoning.Which is as I have pointed out, a case of having all arguments at once.
The nuances of Jesus as he taught aren't conveyed in the bible.
daydreamergurl15 said:Forget about the differences of Protestant and Catholic thinking, my only thinking is, "does it line up with Scripture?" The Scripture is the one thing I know for a fact to be true, so anyone who claims anything else about God, if it does not like up with Scripture, then I'll disregard it.
daydreamergurl15 said:It would also help, if you would make your arguments clear and not muddle others. PROVE to me that I just confined Jesus to a book. You want to know why that would be hard? Because I was speaking about the Holy Spirit helping us UNDERSTAND Scripture NOT saying that Jesus was confined to a book.
The Ethiopian most certainly asked Phillip to help him understanding it and because Philip was moved by the Holy Spirit so He taught the Ethiopian. Guess what? we have the Scripture of what was said. I am not arguing that man do not have the authority to teach Scripture, I'm arguing that Scripture has the authority and we must teach what's in it and if someone claims that something else is "God's word too" it must not contradict.
And you can say "well the men of the bible were not teaching what was in Scripture because Scripture was yet to be written" and you know I'll just say what I've always said, "Scripture was lived before it was written." It was still Scripture whether it was oral or written.
I'm not going through this argument again with you. If you want to continue believing that we're speaking about "experiencing Jesus" as per Scripture, you can continue to believe so, just so you know that will be your stumbling block when it comes to why protestants believe in Scripture.
No, just no. Your theory about why we believe Scripture so much is false and your premise is getting worse.
What in the world?
Why would I take away human emotions away from Christ?
I don't use the term "Trinity", I use the term "Godhead" as said in Romans 1:20 and Colossians 2:9 and you most certainly can prove it through Scripture. If I used the term "Trinity" it's only because of the target audience who understand that term to mean "Godhead". I know I've spoken about that topic often, but as for discussing that topic here, would be too much as I have to go to work soon.
Within your post you have identified two Catholic principles. One is that, if something else is considered alongside Scripture--ie., oral Tradition and the teaching authority of the Church--then it must not contradict Scripture. The other is that the oral teaching of the Apostles--ie., Tradition--is also God-breathed.
HisKid1973 said:So you don't think all the oral teachings of the original apostles was all put to letter say by the first century ? You say the bishops were given more teaching that the original apostles didn't have with the faith once delievered? What are some of the "oral" Traditions that the original apostles didn't know..See when I read "faith once delivered", I wonder what else did we need that wasn't given with the foundation laid of all the original apostles/prophets with Christ as the cornerstone.
There was a good debate on that doctrine some time backHisKid,
If you want specific examples of the teaching that Tradition provides--each of which would probably require its own thread--some are the confirmed notion of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the Catholic form of worship handed down to us (ie., the Liturgy of the Word plus the Liturgy of the Eucharist), an explanation of the Trinity (ie., the Athanasian Creed), teachings regarding the Mother of our Lord, including her Immaculate Conception, the concept of the communion of saints, and others.
everything was not written down because, as John says at the end of his Gospel, all the things about Jesus cannot be contained in books.
Since 1551, the RC Denomination has a unique Eucharistic dogma: Transubstantiation. I don't agree with you that this is confirmed by Scripture - or even that it is confirmed by Tradition. It is a medieval invention of one denomination: yours.If you want specific examples of the teaching that Tradition provides--each of which would probably require its own thread--some are the confirmed notion of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist
Interesting you'd again pick a DOGMA totally unique to your denomination, one nearly all (even Catholics) agree is abiblical.teachings regarding the Mother of our Lord, including her Immaculate Conception.
HisKid,
What is written in Holy Scripture, I believe along with Protestants, is sufficient for Salvation. But no, everything was not written down because, as John says at the end of his Gospel, all the things about Jesus cannot be contained in books.
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?