Spoken words or Traditions used to make or confirm Scripture vs. RCC traditions (after the Bible).

[Paul Yohannan]

Sorry. I just don't believe you.

While I do very carefully research the posts I make, there is no need in this case to believe me personally. If you inspect the German translation by Martin Luther, or read the 39th Paschal Encyclical of St. Athanasius, and compare that encyclical with earlier statements on the canon, for example, by Eusebius of Caesarea, and if you look at an East Syriac Peshitta, you will be able to precisely verify the accuracy of my statement.

I believe the Word of God instead.

...

If you can show me where our Lord personally enumerates the NT canon and the order in which these books are to be arranged, that would be a very compelling argument. As it happens such a demonstration would be impossible given that the NT scriptures were written across the decades after the Ascension of our Lord.

This is in contrast to, for example, the Islamic Quran, which was apparently produced by Muhammed personally. Our Lord did not personally pen any of the NT scriptures which describe Him, and this is why there are minor variations in how the Synoptics and St. Paul describe the Last Supper, for instance.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

While I do very carefully research the posts I make, there is no need in this case to believe me personally. If you inspect the German translation by Martin Luther, or read the 39th Paschal Encyclical of St. Athanasius, and compare that encyclical with earlier statements on the canon, for example, by Eusebius of Caesarea, and if you look at an East Syriac Peshitta, you will be able to precisely verify the accuracy of my statement.



If you can show me where our Lord personally enumerates the NT canon and the order in which these books are to be arranged, that would be a very compelling argument. As it happens such a demonstration would be impossible given that the NT scriptures were written across the decades after the Ascension of our Lord.

This is in contrast to, for example, the Islamic Quran, which was apparently produced by Muhammed personally. Our Lord did not personally pen any of the NT scriptures which describe Him, and this is why there are minor variations in how the Synoptics and St. Paul describe the Last Supper, for instance.

The Bible as a whole is a divine book unlike any other. It has more evidences backing it up than China has got rice. I also trust God's Word when it says it has been preserved today perfectly. For how can God hold people accountable to His Word if people could not tell clearly what was His Word? Also, faith comes by hearing the Word of God. Hearing. How do you hear Jesus? By His Words.

Also, you are wasting your time trying to convince me. I am willing to die for my beliefs that I hold in the Word of God. I know too much by God, His Word, and Biblical evidences to be convinced otherwise. In fact, I don't even entertain ideas outside God's Word.


...

 

[Paul Yohannan]

The Bible as a whole is a divine book unlike any other.

Divine in what way? I believe that Sacred Scripture was inspired by the Holy Spirit. However I would reject the idea of the Bible as being deity or uncreated; it is Holy, but it represents a communication from God and is not God. Thus, John 1:1 cannot refer to the Bible.

It has more evidences backing it up than China has got rice.

Such as?

I also trust God's Word when it says it has been preserved today perfectly. For how can God hold people accountable to His Word if people could not tell clearly what was His Word?

Setting aside the John 1 point, what verses do you cite in support of this?

Also, faith comes by hearing the Word of God. Hearing. How do you hear Jesus? By His Words.

"Hearing" and not "reading."

Also, you are wasting your time trying to convince me.

I am not trying to convince you of anything, I am responding to your argument against my own church.

I am willing to die for my beliefs that I hold in the Word of God.

This is commendable. I believe in religious freedom and in not killing people for their faith, which is something that Muslims tend to do to my coreligionists. If a Muslim threatened to end my life unless I committed apostasy, I pray that I would have the courage to refuse their request, like the Coptic martyrs depicted in the icon I use as an avatar.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Divine in what way?

The message or the origin of the words is divine.

I believe that Sacred Scripture was inspired by the Holy Spirit.

But do you believe there is a message of the Word of God that is perfect for our world language today?

However I would reject the idea of the Bible as being deity or uncreated;

Nowhere did I state the the Bible is a deity in and of itself or that the Bible was uncreated. Who actually believes something like that?

When I say the Bible is divine, I am saying that it is divine or holy in origin in regards to it's message.

it is Holy, but it represents a communication from God and is not God.

While the Bible is not God, it is a glimpse of God's character into who He is. God works in harmony with His Word to transform the hearts of men. God always abides with His Word because they are His words. God makes many promises in His Word that He cannot break. Thru God's Word we learn about God and we come to have faith in God thru it. You can no more separate God from His Word than you can separate pouring rain from being wet. But there is a difference between the Living Word and the Written Word.

For example: If I write a love letter to my wife, she could regard it with love and affection. She could be moved emotionally by my words. She would get an idea what was in my heart and thoughts towards her. However, if she were to take the letter out on a date and think it was me, then that would be strange. It is only paper and ink. But the paper and ink convey the messaage of my heart towards her. They convey my inner man to her. My love. She gets a glimpse of my love thru what is written on the page. This is what God does with his Word. But it is even more than that.

Thus, John 1:1 cannot refer to the Bible.

I never said that John 1:1 did refer to the Bible. That is your wrong assumption of what you think I believe. I believe there are three types of Words of God mentioned in Scripture.

#1. The Living Word of God (Jesus)
#2. The Written Word of God (The Holy Scriptures)
#3. The Spoken Word of God (Like when God speaks)

It has more evidences backing it up than China has got rice.

Such as?

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/general-list-of-biblical-evidences.7833944/

Setting aside the John 1 point, what verses do you cite in support of this?

God's Word claims that it is perfect (Psalms 12:6) (Psalms 119:140) (Proverbs 30:5) and that it will be preserved for all generations (Psalms 12:7) and it will stand forever (Isaiah 40:8) (1 Peter 1:25). Therefore, seeing Scripture plainly states these facts, it then becomes an issue of a test of your faith in God's Word (See the test the devil gave to Eve in Genesis 3:1); Because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe (1 Thessalonians 2:13). In other words, do you believe you hold the very words of God within your hands like the disciples did?

"Hearing" and not "reading."

Not sure you get it. Most people preach from the written Word of God. So a person can hear the written Word of God from a preacher or they can read the written Word of God for themselves.

Jesus says, "It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." (Matthew 4:4).

In other words, we can live spiritually by speaking the written Words of God. Jesus (Who is God) referenced Scripture of the written Word of God.

Here is a quote from a poster on another Christian forum.

Jesus has been proven to be not only a credible witness, but a messenger from God. In all His teachings He referred to the divine authority of the Old Testament (Mt. 5:17-18; 8:17; 12:40-42; Lk. 4:18-21; 10:25-28; 15:29-31; 17:32; 24:25-45; Jn. 5:39-47). He quoted the Old Testament 78 times, the Pentateuch alone 26 times. He quoted from Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Psalms, Proverbs, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Amos, Jonah, Micah, and Malachi. He referred to the Old Testament as “The Scriptures,” “the word of God,” and “the wisdom of God.” The apostles quoted 209 times from the Old Testament and considered it “the oracles of God.” The Old Testament in hundreds of places predicted the events of the New Testament; and as the New Testament is the fulfillment of, and testifies to the genuineness and authenticity of the Old Testament, both Testaments must be considered together as the Word of God.​

Source:
Random question, how many times did Jesus quote the OT in the gospels?

I am not trying to convince you of anything, I am responding to your argument against my own church.

They may have all the answers you may want to hear, but the key question is how do you know those answers are true?

This is commendable. I believe in religious freedom and in not killing people for their faith, which is something that Muslims tend to do to my coreligionists. If a Muslim threatened to end my life unless I committed apostasy, I pray that I would have the courage to refuse their request, like the Coptic martyrs depicted in the icon I use as an avatar.

In Israel, during the Old Testament times God did not believe in religious freedom. His first command was, You shalt not have any other gods before you. Granted, I believe the New Covenant is different than the Old Covenant. Today, I hold to the view that God's true believers or saints are currently pacifists. They wage a war that is spiritual or unseen.


...

 

[Paul Yohannan]

The message or the origin of the words is divine.

I agree.

But do you believe there is a message of the Word of God that is perfect for our world language today?

Yes. I simply disagree with you as to its nature and contents.

Nowhere did I state the the Bible is a deity in and of itself or that the Bible was uncreated. Who actually believes something like that?

When I say the Bible is divine, I am saying that it is divine or holy in origin in regards to it's message.

While the Bible is not God, it is a glimpse of God's character into who He is. God works in harmony with His Word to transform the hearts of men. God always abides with His Word because they are His words. God makes many promises in His Word that He cannot break. Thru God's Word we learn about God and we come to have faith in God thru it. You can no more separate God from His Word than you can separate pouring rain from being wet. But there is a difference between the Living Word and the Written Word.

Very good, this is articulated in a more agreeable manner.

They may have all the answers you may want to hear, but the key question is how do you know those answers are true?
...

The answer is best articulated by quoting the bewildered Pontius Pilate: "What is truth?"

And indeed elsewhere in John our Lord self-identifies as The Truth.

So thus, the answer (Jesus).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

No, not really. I would cite Galatians 1:8 together with 2 Thessalonians 3:6, Matthew 16:18 and 1 Corinthians 11:2 as demonstrating the need to adhere to the traditional interpreration of scripture we have received from the Apostles, and to reject innovation.

1 John 2:27 says,
"But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him."

1 John 2:20-21 says,
20 "But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.
21 I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth."

This was written to all the believers at a specific church and not just specific ordained leaders.

1. Verse 12 - John addresses "little children."
2. Verse 13 - John addresses "fathers"
3. Verse 13 - John addresses "young men."

Thru out verses 12-14, John praises them for their knowing God, overcoming the wicked one, and being strong in the Word (i.e. the written Word of God).


...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Completely irrelevant to my point. Again.

Your point was to prove that there are rulers within the body of Christ that we must obey. I have provided verses to show you that this is not the case.

Anyways, I will leave you with one last verse that God had brought to my attention yesterday.

Acts 5:29
"Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men."

...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Yes. I simply disagree with you as to its nature and contents.

Yes, we do appear to disagree with what God's Word says. Specifically, I do not see the Traditions in God's Word within it as you propose. Verses or passages have to be used with great imagination in order to make them to support the Traditions you believe.

The answer is best articulated by quoting the bewildered Pontius Pilate: "What is truth?"

And indeed elsewhere in John our Lord self-identifies as The Truth.

So thus, the answer (Jesus).

Actually, this proves my case and not your case. I believe Jesus and the Written Word of God (which show Jesus's words or the words of God Father spoken thru Him) in how they breath in harmony with each other. The Written Word of God is- an authority for me. Jesus says this to the Father, "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth." Jesus is speaking not of His authority alone outside of the Father here. Remember, Jesus says only what the Father told Him to say (John 12:49). For Jesus spoke not by His own authority (John 14:10).

Traditions or historical documents cannot be proven in the same way as the Written Word of God. The message of the Written Word of God is clearly divine in origin. There is no mistake about it. That is why you quoted the Bible instead of church tradition this last time. It is a true authority.

The Written Word of God is an authority for us. It tells us what God wants us to do. It is God's instructions. So the Written Word plays a very important and vital role in our faith, and relationship with God. For without it we would not have the faith that we have. For how can we know about God and His plan of salvation without His Word? His Word was written down for a reason. No doubt so that men could not be confused as to what God desired of man.

But as for traditions and historical documents?
You will never be able to show me how they are on the same level with God's Word in how they are divine in origin (with it's message).

Yes, it is true. Jesus is the way, the TRUTH, and the life.
But not everyone believes or follows the same Jesus.
There are some who make Jesus to say things He specifically did not say.


...

 

[Paul Yohannan]

You will never be able to show me how they are on the same level with God's Word in how they are divine in origin (with it's message).

I am not out to convince you of anything; my desire is simply to respond to your view concerning the Orthodox church and to make known a different perspective regarding these issues. I believe in religious freedom, and this means that I believe you should feel free to believe whatever you consider believable. Indeed I would never have struck up a conversation with you on this point had you not initiated one.

I respect your religious views, even if I disagree with them.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I am not out to convince you of anything; my desire is simply to respond to your view concerning the Orthodox church and to make known a different perspective regarding these issues. I believe in religious freedom, and this means that I believe you should feel free to believe whatever you consider believable. Indeed I would never have struck up a conversation with you on this point had you not initiated one.

I respect your religious views, even if I disagree with them.

Again, this is where we differ. While I respect you as another human being and I have love for you (by the love of Christ in me), I do not respect other beliefs that differ from God's Word. Beliefs that are contrary to God and His Word are not something I would respect or admire. I do not respect a person's wrong decision to murder anymore than I would respect a person's decision to believe something in God's Word that is not true. For whatsoever is not of the faith is sin; And faith comes by hearing the Word of God.


...

 

[Wolf_Says]

My brief bio in every post says I am Non-Denominational. So I am not Protestant. I do not believe in OSAS or Once Saved Always Saved; For Luther was promoting what we would call OSAS today when he protested against the Catholic church. Most of the Protestant churches today still believe in OSAS. But it is a teaching not found within the Scriptures, though.

As for Catholic traditions: You will not see the following practices clearly described to us in the New Testament.

(a) Salvation in Mary
(b) Praying to dead saints
(c) Eucharist salvation
(d) Bowing down and the kissing of statues
(e) Confessional
(f) Calling men your father
(g) Holy garments and rituals with candles, etc.
(h) Lifting up of one man as if he is more holy than other people
(I) Large expensive church building and the hoarding of earthly treasures.
(j) A pope like leader (whereby crowds of people adore him).

Also, the word "traditions" mentioned in the Bible is primarily negative with it's use (i.e. 10 times the word is negative). Only 3 times is the word "traditons" used favorably but it was not something in reference to a whole new teaching outside of God's Word. Acts 17:11 says that the Bereans were more noble because they searched the Scriptures to see whether those things "spoken" were true or not.

Are you a Berean?
Have you searched the Scriptures to see if the above list of things is clearly found within the Scriptures?

Anyways, if you don't get it, that's okay.
I am moving on.
But I will be praying for everyone to see what God has shown to me on this matter.


...

You appear to be a very difficult person to deal with from what I am seeing. But I shall answer the "traditions" that you seem to have a beef with from my Church.

a) There is no Salvation in Mary, however she is the Mother of God and is incredibly close to her son Jesus. The very first miracle of Jesus was on behalf of Mary. Of course Mary is intertwined in our Salvation as she is our Lord's mother. You cannot become more intertwined than that.

b) We do not pray to dead saints, we ask them to pray for us. We believe in the Communion of Saints, and that all saints and close to God, and have the ability to hear us and therefore pray for us. Nothing wrong with having more people praying for you.

c) The Eucharist should be taken literally, and it is clearly spelled out in the Bible. John 6:53-56
This seems rather clear to me.

d) God ordered Moses to make statues right after he received the commandments.

e) John 20:21-23, also seems pretty clear to me. Jesus gave the apostles the ability to forgive sins through Him.

I am just going to leave it at that. The Pope is the successor of Peter, who was made the head of the earthly Church by Jesus Christ, and Cathedrals are built in such a way to point your attention towards the alter and up towards heaven.

 

[Wolf_Says]

Again, this is where we differ. While I respect you as another human being and I have love for you (by the love of Christ in me), I do not respect other beliefs that differ from God's Word. Beliefs that are contrary to God and His Word are not something I would respect or admire. I do not respect a person's wrong decision to murder anymore than I would respect a person's decision to believe something in God's Word that is not true. For whatsoever is not of the faith is sin; And faith comes by hearing the Word of God.


...

Orthodoxy and Catholicism hardly differ from God's Word. There are some differences and arguments that go back and forth over which of the 2 is the original Church and after the schism who is correct, but for the most part neither of the faiths differ from what is in the Bible.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Where in scripture does it say that other Christians traits, not in line with scripture, should be publicly discouraged? Isn't that a tradition of men?

Where in scripture does it advise us about debating the faith amongst each other at all?

...Doesn't scripture more than not advise us to respect beleivers rather than criticise their style of worship?

Just curious, and please excuse my ignorance.

 

[Erose]

Again, this is where we differ. While I respect you as another human being and I have love for you (by the love of Christ in me), I do not respect other beliefs that differ from God's Word. Beliefs that are contrary to God and His Word are not something I would respect or admire. I do not respect a person's wrong decision to murder anymore than I would respect a person's decision to believe something in God's Word that is not true. For whatsoever is not of the faith is sin; And faith comes by hearing the Word of God.


...

Thanks for pointing out why one shouldn't be a non-denominational.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Where in scripture does it say that other Christians traits, not in line with scripture, should be publicly discouraged? Isn't that a tradition of men?

Where in scripture does it advise us about debating the faith amongst each other at all?

...Doesn't scripture more than not advise us to respect beleivers rather than criticise their style of worship?

Just curious, and please excuse my ignorance.

@Jason0047,
Is it possible that the very premise of this thread is hypocritial in regards to "traditions" of men?

...Please forgive me for asking.

 

[Thursday]

Your point was to prove that there are rulers within the body of Christ that we must obey. I have provided verses to show you that this is not the case.

...

You have done nothing of the sort. All you have done is find reasons to ignore the word of God. You deny that Jesus established a Church with leaders and that he gave these leaders authority over the flock. You prefer to lean on your own understanding.

You are described here:

1 John 2
19They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.

Here's how we know the truth:

1 John 4
6We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

Because Jesus said:

Luke 10:16
"Whoever listens to you listens to me; whoever rejects you rejects me; but whoever rejects me rejects him who sent me."

 

[Erose]

I don't know why but I have decided to respond to the OP and the fallacious arguments that he has proposed.

Also, Jesus followers and Paul were making sacred Scripture that would end with John's vision that he had written down. For if we are to add to the words of the prophecy of John's book (Which is the end of the Bible), then we would be at risk of adding plagues to ourselves that would be contained within the Bible itself (Revelation 22:18-19). Remember, Paul says if any man speaks contrary to the words of Jesus Christ and the doctrine of Godliness, he is proud and knows nothing (1 Timothy 6:3-4). Paul also says that what he had written should be regarded as the Commandments from the LORD (1 Corinthians 14:37). The books written by Paul clearly show that they are just as divine as the rest of the book in the Bible. They breath in perfect harmony with the whole Bible.

Even though with some of this I agree with there are a few errors that has been made by the OP. 1) The OP makes the assertion that Paul and the other "Jesus followers" were intentionally making sacred Scripture. In all honesty there is no evidence from Scripture or history that any of the Apostles or Evangelists believed that they were writing Divine Scripture. St. Paul's letters were for the purpose of dialog with the churches that he helped find. All the Gospels were written as tools for passing down the faith. Does anyone really believe that Luke, Mark, Matthew or John (perhaps John) believed that they were writing divinely inspired literature? There is really no indication from their writings that they believed this was the case. It was after the pinning of the writings that the Church determined through the Holy Spirit that they were divinely inspired.

2) The other assertion is that the warning of Revelation applies to the whole Bible. The problem with this assertion is that when Revelations was written it wasn't part of any Bible. It was a stand alone document. Thus its warning doesn't apply to the library of writings we call the Bible today, just only to the book of Revelations.

3) The failure to understand the history of the canonicity of Scripture. I get that most folks just assume that the Bible as we have it today (in English) just fell out of the sky after Jesus' ascension into heaven. The problem is that this just did not happen, and the compilation of what writings are classified as Biblical and which one's are not is a whole lot messier than folks are willing to believe.

Also, the spoken word was always confirmed by the written Word. For the Bereans were more noble because they searched the Scriptures to see whether those things be so or not (Acts 17:11).

The Bereans seem to always be the folks that one goes to for the purpose of defending the false concept of Sola Scriptura. The problem is that you have to pull that story completely out of context to get to Sola Scriptura. St. Paul was a master at bridging gaps to his audiences. With Jews he used their scrolls. With the Athenians he used a statue to the unknown god. But for some reason Sola Scriptura folks don't claim that statues are divinely inspired do they? Only in this passage.

So it always comes back to the written Word of God. No other holy book besides the Bible stands the test like the Bible. A person may make the claim that their additional holy writings are divine, but they cannot be verified as being true in the same way as the Bible.

The Bible is believed to be the written word of God, because the Church has proclaimed it as so. If the Church didn't do this nor did the monks and nuns throughout the centuries copy it and preserved it then you wouldn't have the Bible that you cherished today. The Bible doesn't reproduce itself. It doesn't interpret itself. It doesn't claim to be divinely inspired. The Church does that. Without the Church there is no Bible.

Evidences of all kind supports the Bible. But this is not the case for any other holy book or writings. In fact, the Mormons have their extra book. Jehovah's Witnesses have their extra writings. The Muslims have their extra written words. Does that mean everyone is correct?

Just curious what extra writings do the JW's possess? The Muslims do not accept the Christian bible as divinely inspired, so one cannot make the claim that they have extra written words, but rather another set of written words.

Yes, this actually proves my case and not yours. You believe you need the church or men in order to understand God's Word.

Pretty much what Scripture says.

You believe you need those extra writings.

What extra writings? Thursday is Catholic, so what extra writings are you talking about?

God's Word is sufficient all on it's own.

No it isn't. The Bible has never (except for modern publishers I guess) fed one person, nor has it ever clothe anyone, nor has it ever passed itself out. I have never seen a Bible baptize one single individual, nor have I seen one walk through the harshest parts of this world to spread the Gospel. You give the Bible more credit than it was ever intended to possess.

But again, the Bible shows us that we do not ultimately need man for God to teach us. How so? The Bible says,

"But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him" (1 John 2:27).

Lets look at the full passage that you quoted:

24 Therefore let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father. 25 And this is the promise that He has promised us—eternal life. 26 These things I have written to you concerning those who try to deceive you. 27 But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him.

Interesting that does not mention what you read even once, but rather what you heard. Perhaps more time should be applied to meditating on this passage.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

You appear to be a very difficult person to deal with from what I am seeing. But I shall answer the "traditions" that you seem to have a beef with from my Church.

It is nothing personal. I am against any religious practice or belief that is not clearly defined in the Bible. For me, it would be like arguing against gravity or against how rain is wet. But you are free to believe whatever you like.

a) There is no Salvation in Mary, however she is the Mother of God and is incredibly close to her son Jesus. The very first miracle of Jesus was on behalf of Mary. Of course Mary is intertwined in our Salvation as she is our Lord's mother. You cannot become more intertwined than that.

First, you say there is no salvation in Mary and then you backtrack and say that your salvation is interwined with her. This is is just double talk. She either is a part of salvation in some way or she is not. Yes, or no. Seeing you are saying that salvation is interwined with Mary, then it is clear that you believe you cannot have salvation without Mary, right? I mean, I get it. You believe Mary just dispenses the grace or salvation from Jesus. But this would still make her a vital part or role in salvation in some way because she dispenses the grace or salvation from Jesus. However, she was just a human. She cannot answer millions of prayers and pass out grace.

In fact, where in the Bible does it say that Mary can dispense the grace of Jesus? Where does the Bible say that salvation is interwined in Mary? Where does the Bible say that we can pray to Mary? It simply doesn't. So this would be an addition to Scripture. Scripture says Jesus is the only mediator between God and man.

b) We do not pray to dead saints, we ask them to pray for us. We believe in the Communion of Saints, and that all saints and close to God, and have the ability to hear us and therefore pray for us. Nothing wrong with having more people praying for you.

Again, this is double talk. On the one hand, you are saying that you do not pray to the saints and on the other hand you are saying that you ask them to pray for you. Communication to the dead of any kind would be praying to them in some way. You are desiring something from them. This is prayer. The Bible again forbids contacting the dead. I remember telling my childhood friend (who was a Catholic) that He should just pray to Jesus directly and forget about praying to Mary. For 1 John 2:1-2 says we have an advocate named Jesus Christ that we can go to so as to confess sin (1 John 1:9).

c) The Eucharist should be taken literally, and it is clearly spelled out in the Bible. John 6:53-56
This seems rather clear to me.

Oh, really? It's that clear huh? You mean to tell me that the text says that you should receive from a priest a wafer that comes out of some kind of sunlike statue and you should drink wine out of a beautifully adorned cup thinking that Jesus is inside these elements in some way? Does the Bible clearly explain to me that we have to partake of the Lord's supper in order to be saved in other places? Or can the text also be read metaphorically and make sense, too? For me, when I read it literally it conflicts with the rest of Scripture. Jesus offered Himself once for our sins bodily. Yet, spiritually, you think Christ is re-sacrificing Himself over and over and over. Jesus said, it is finished.

d) God ordered Moses to make statues right after he received the commandments.

No. God did not immediately tell His people to make statues after the giving of the 10 Commandments. On the contrary, God's people were rebuked for making a statue of a calf. The creation of the Ark of the Covenant came later. God only told them to put cherubums on the Ark, but God did not tell them to bow down to these statues upon the Ark. God was not giving churches the green light to create statues outside of His commands within His Word. For example: God commanded His people to destroy certain enemy nations. Yet, murder is still wrong. Meaning, taking a life outside of God's authority was considered wrong in the Old Testament. The RCC no doubt will claim that it has authority from God to put up statues, and to even bow dow to them (even though it is not considered worship somehow), but I do not see a clear command or description of such practices from God in the New Testament on this.

e) John 20:21-23, also seems pretty clear to me. Jesus gave the apostles the ability to forgive sins through Him.

No. This is not forgiving sins thru Him. This was merely saying that if a person repents of their sins to Jesus, that means the church body has the authority to say they are forgiven. If a person does not truly repent, a believer should be able to tell in certain cases and say that they have not truly repented of their sins to the Lord. This does not mean the church body has any power or authority to forgive sin. Only God can directly absolve sin. To include flawed man in the process of absolving sin does not make any sense. Only that which is clean (like God) can truly wash away sins (which is something that is dirty).

I am just going to leave it at that. The Pope is the successor of Peter, who was made the head of the earthly Church by Jesus Christ, and Cathedrals are built in such a way to point your attention towards the alter and up towards heaven.

No. Peter says Jesus is the Rock in 1 Peter 2:6-8. Also, Catholics today bow down and kiss a statue of Peter. In fact, they do this so much that the foot of the statue is worn out. Yet, when Cornelius fell down at Peter's feet and worshipped him, Peter said, “Stand up; I myself also am a man.” (Acts 10:25-26).


...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

The OP makes the assertion that Paul and the other "Jesus followers" were intentionally making sacred Scripture. In all honesty there is no evidence from Scripture or history that any of the Apostles or Evangelists believed that they were writing Divine Scripture.

Paul said that what he had written should be regarded as the Lord's Commandments (1 Corinthians 14:37).

God's Commands written down would be another good way of saying Scripture.

Besides, Peter said that Paul's writings were Scripture, as well.

15 "And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction." (2 Peter 3:15-16).​

Also, God said this about Paul a short time after his conversion.

"...for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:" (Acts 9:15).​

In other words, Paul was a chosen vesssel to bear God's name among the Gentiles, etc. thru his preaching and by his letters.


...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Thanks for pointing out why one shouldn't be a non-denominational.

Should we respect or admire what we believe to is not biblical?


...