The Bible Is A Catholic Book

[Blade]

For me.. anytime something is being said from the out side of the word of God as truth.. gonna pass. I know the quotes the saying going back before 200ad and after. "God preserved and compiled it through the Catholic Book. This is why it can only be translated and interpreted it by Catholic Church."

The song playing right now "The Gospel" Ryan Stevenson. Its the gospel that makes the way. Sticking with His word "that no flesh should glory in His presence"

 

[1213]

...The priesthood is a call, a privilege...

I wonder who is calling, when Jesus himself says:

For they bind heavy burdens that are grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not lift a finger to help them. But all their works they do to be seen by men. They make their phylacteries broad, enlarge the fringes of their garments, and love the place of honor at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues, the salutations in the marketplaces, and to be called 'Rabbi, Rabbi' by men. But don't you be called 'Rabbi,' for one is your teacher, the Christ, and all of you are brothers. Call no man on the earth your father, for one is your Father, he who is in heaven. Neither be called masters, for one is your master, the Christ. But he who is greatest among you will be your servant. Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.
Mat. 23:4-12

I think that is very much against the typical idea of a priest, even though it doesn’t use word “priest”. I would say there could as well be the word “priest” in the place of “rabbi”.

If Jesus meant that literally then Paul while inspired by the Holy Spirit to write part of the Bible went against the teachings of Jesus. He called himself their father through the gospel.

I think that is an interesting point and I have also wondered it. It indeed seems that Paul is going against the teachings of Jesus. But I think Paul is also just a man, and it is said errare humanum est. If Paul would have done a mistake, I think it would not be a big problem. And in any case, if we are truly disciples of Jesus, I think we should follow the teachings of Jesus.

Also, what do you call the man who impregnated your mother that eventually brought you into the world? Is he not your father?

Biological father. I can accept that people call biological father shortly just a father, because that is the biological fact. I think Jesus is speaking of father in spiritual sense and by what he says, I think it is wrong to call priests fathers.

Cherubim are angels. So God commanded that to be two angels, HAMMER OUT OF GOLD! To me, this sure sounds like graven images. So how can God command them to do the very thing He forbade them to do in Exodus 20?

I have understood graven image means image of god. Angels or humans are not gods, so it is acceptable to make images of them as long as one doesn’t think human or angel or the image of them is god.

 

[Not David]

I wonder who is calling, when Jesus himself says:

For they bind heavy burdens that are grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not lift a finger to help them. But all their works they do to be seen by men. They make their phylacteries broad, enlarge the fringes of their garments, and love the place of honor at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues, the salutations in the marketplaces, and to be called 'Rabbi, Rabbi' by men. But don't you be called 'Rabbi,' for one is your teacher, the Christ, and all of you are brothers. Call no man on the earth your father, for one is your Father, he who is in heaven. Neither be called masters, for one is your master, the Christ. But he who is greatest among you will be your servant. Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.
Mat. 23:4-12

I think that is very much against the typical idea of a priest, even though it doesn’t use word “priest”. I would say there could as well be the word “priest” in the place of “rabbi”.



I think that is an interesting point and I have also wondered it. It indeed seems that Paul is going against the teachings of Jesus. But I think Paul is also just a man, and it is said errare humanum est. If Paul would have done a mistake, I think it would not be a big problem. And in any case, if we are truly disciples of Jesus, I think we should follow the teachings of Jesus.



Biological father. I can accept that people call biological father shortly just a father, because that is the biological fact. I think Jesus is speaking of father in spiritual sense and by what he says, I think it is wrong to call priests fathers.



I have understood graven image means image of god. Angels or humans are not gods, so it is acceptable to make images of them as long as one doesn’t think human or angel or the image of them is god.

Christ never debunked the Pharisees office, he just called out to their hypocrisy. Those two are different things.

 

[packermann]

And in that period of time a lot of doctrinal problems were included in the church.

That is begging the question. You only see these as problems because you look at them from a Protestant perspective.

Just as Christ did with His example in Mark 7:6-13 that I had just given in my prior post.

I responded to that, and my response was ignored by you and everyone else who is Protestant. But until you respond to it, my answer remains irrefutable. My response is that Matthew in chapter quote from an OT prophet, and that quoted cannot be found in the OT. So if Matthew meant that quote to be in the OT then he would be in error. And if he was in error then that would mean that the NT is in error. And is it if the NT is in error then our Bible could not be the word of Bible.


You do have another option. Admit that Mathew was not quoting from what was written but from oral tradition. Then Matthew would not be in error and our Bible is the Word of God.


This is just an example why far more Protestant scholars than Catholic scholars have totally abandoned Christianity have fallen into liberalism. The Bible falls apart when it is viewed without the Catholic faith.

No I think all tradition is to be tested sola scriptura to see if it contradicts the teaching of scripture. Notice how Christ does it in Mark 7.

That is a circular argument. You are testing tradition based on scripture. But you look at scripture based on the tradition of your own denomination. That is why there are so many different Protestant denominations. The Baptist sees the Bible as being thoroughly Baptist. The Lutheran sees the Bible as being totally Lutheran. The Methodist sees the Bible as being thoroughly Methodist. The Pentecostal sees the Bible as being thoroughly Pentecostal. And so on, and so on.

 

[packermann]

David Cabrera[/URL]”]

There was not a cardinal system during the first century and a lot of martyr popes, according to your hypothesis there wouldn't be a pope since the very beginning.

No, that was not what I was saying. I'll explain further. Somewhere in the line of popes, a pope changed it from personally selecting the next pope to the cardinal system. Each way is valid, but the old way is risky because the pope may die before selecting his successor. And the pope who did change it had the authority from a Catholic perspective because Jesus said that whatever Peter binds on earth will be done. It does not mean that the way it was done beforehand was wrong or invalid.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
And in that period of time a lot of doctrinal problems were included in the church.

That is begging the question. You only see these as problems because you look at them from a Protestant perspective. .

The entire protestant reformation is centered on the fact that it was non-protestants (i.e. Catholics) that were finding that problem in their own church and raising the red flag to signal a problem. The dismissal of all dissent using the form "you only say that because you don't belong to my church" does not work in this example - because it is precisely the people in your own church that first raised the warning flag to signal that a problem needed to be resolved.

 

[charsan]

This is just an example why far more Protestant scholars than Catholic scholars have totally abandoned Christianity have fallen into liberalism. The Bible falls apart when it is viewed without the Catholic faith.

So does it fall about for the Orthodox?

 

[BobRyan]

The Reformers immediately broke from those those methods of determining the truth - to one one, sola scriptura.

Just as Christ did with His example in Mark 7:6-13 that I had just given in my prior post.


Mark 7:6-13
6 He answered and said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:
‘This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far from Me.
7 And in vain they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’
8 For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men—the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do.”
9 He said to them, “All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’ 11 But you say, ‘If a man says to his father or mother, “Whatever profit you might have received from me is Corban”—’ (that is, a gift to God), 12 then you no longer let him do anything for his father or his mother, 13 making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do.”

A clear example condemning man-made-tradition - via the method of "Sola Scriptura" testing

In the Mark 7 example - Christ uses nothing but scripture to prove the point about flawed tradition.

Do you believe all tradition is flawed?

No I think all tradition is to be tested sola scriptura to see if it contradicts the teaching of scripture. Notice how Christ does it in Mark 7.

I responded to that, and my response was ignored by you and everyone else who is Protestant. But until you respond to it, my answer remains irrefutable. My response is that Matthew in chapter quote from an OT prophet, and that quoted cannot be found in the OT. So if Matthew meant that quote to be in the OT then he would be in error. And if he was in error then that would mean that the NT is in error. And is it if the NT is in error then our Bible could not be the word of Bible. .

First of all that quote is from Mark.. not Matthew.

Secondly - the quote of the 5th commandment that we see there is from Exodus 20:12

Thirdly - Matt 15:4 also quotes form Exodus 20:12...

I don't follow your point.... please explain

 

[BobRyan]

That is a circular argument. You are testing tradition based on scripture. But you look at scripture based on the tradition of your own denomination.

1. Where do I argue "This texts means - "A" because look here is a tradition in my church that says to always see it that way"??

2. The protesting Catholics of the reformation could not have been arguing sola scriptura testing of all Catholic doctrine by using the method you suggest either - because their catholic church would not have supported them with "tradition" either.

3. The bible text is much more obvious than you seem to be willing to admit. And your claim that it is a "catholic document" should actually lead you to 'insist' that we follow scripture.

4. Why do you argue that what you call a catholic document (the Bible) cannot be known without reading another catholic document? That is an endless chasing-tail proposal where no catholic document can actually be read an known without reading some other Catholic document which also cannot be read an known?

 

[packermann]

No, you didn't, but I never claimed you did, so your present line of argument is rather pointless.

I am sorry. I cannot follow your reasoning.

 

[packermann]

The Lutheran teaching that the Holy Scriptures are the norma normans of Christian faith and practice--i.e. that the Scriptures are the Un-normed norm, or the chief principle--is in no way bothered by the lack of certainty over the status of the Deuterocanonical books. In part because Lutherans aren't "Bible onlyists"

So if the Lutherans are not "Bible onlyists", does that mean they reject Martin Luther's sola scriptura?

The infallibility of Scripture, in communicating the pure Word of God--Jesus Christ and His Gospel--does not depend on there being an infallible Canon of Scripture.

-CryptoLutheran

I heard that before from Protestants - that the Bible is an fallible collection of infallible books. To us Catholics, this seems nonsense. If we cannot be sure that the collection of the books of the Bible is infallible then we cannot cannot be be sure that the Bible is infallible.

It reminds me what the Lutheran scholar Rudolf Bultmann once said. He said that even if they found the body of Jesus in a tomb he would still believe in the resurrection of Christ. I suggest you read from Francis Schaefer, an excellent Protestant scholar who criticizes the current condition of Protestantism - of holding to a blind leap of faith even though it contradicts what we know to be true. Its believing in the resurrection of Christ even though you know it did not happen or believing that the Bible is infallible even though you believe that books in the Bible may be fallible.

I went to Trinity Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois. It combats the error in modern Protestant, schizophrenic mentality of divorcing faith from reality. My best friend went to another seminary that was more liberal, teaching that you can believe in something that you know is not true. He even said that there were errors in the Bible! We had many heated discussions about this. Eventually, he left the Christian Faith. He died about 15 years ago. A mutual friend visited him before he died and told me he came back to the Faith at the end. I hope and pray that this was so. But a contradictory system of beliefs does not have the staying power to keep us in the Faith.

 

[prodromos]

I am sorry. I cannot follow your reasoning.

What reasoning?
You made a false claim which I refuted. Nothing you've posted since then has addressed this.

 

[Tigger45]

So if the Lutherans are not "Bible onlyists", does that mean they reject Martin Luther's sola scriptura?


I heard that before from Protestants - that the Bible is an fallible collection of infallible books. To us Catholics, this seems nonsense. If we cannot be sure that the collection of the books of the Bible is infallible then we cannot cannot be be sure that the Bible is infallible.

It reminds me what the Lutheran scholar Rudolf Bultmann once said. He said that even if they found the body of Jesus in a tomb he would still believe in the resurrection of Christ. I suggest you read from Francis Schaefer, an excellent Protestant scholar who criticizes the current condition of Protestantism - of holding to a blind leap of faith even though it contradicts what we know to be true. Its believing in the resurrection of Christ even though you know it did not happen or believing that the Bible is infallible even though you believe that books in the Bible may be fallible.

I went to Trinity Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois. It combats the error in modern Protestant, schizophrenic mentality of divorcing faith from reality. My best friend went to another seminary that was more liberal, teaching that you can believe in something that you know is not true. He even said that there were errors in the Bible! We had many heated discussions about this. Eventually, he left the Christian Faith. He died about 15 years ago. A mutual friend visited him before he died and told me he came back to the Faith at the end. I hope and pray that this was so. But a contradictory system of beliefs does not have the staying power to keep us in the Faith.

Sola Scriptura isn’t ‘bible onlyists’ nuda scriptura is. Sola Scriptura holds scripture as it’s final authority but does not restrict input from other sources such as the writings of the ECF’s.

 

[packermann]

What reasoning?
You made a false claim which I refuted. Nothing you've posted since then has addressed this.

 

[BBAS 64]

Good day, Packerman

Jst so you have a very clear working definition of Sola Scriptura:

First of all, it is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. The Bible is not exhaustive in every detail. John 21:25 speaks to the fact that there are many things that Jesus said and did that are not recorded in John, or in fact in any book in the world because the whole books of the world could not contain it. But the Bible does not have to be exhaustive to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church. We do not need to know the color of Thomas' eyes. We do not need to know the menu of each meal of the Apostolic band for the Scriptures to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church.

Secondly, it is not a denial of the Church's authority to teach God's truth. I Timothy 3:15 describes the Church as "the pillar and foundation of the truth." The truth is in Jesus Christ and in His Word. The Church teaches truth and calls men to Christ and, in so doing, functions as the pillar and foundation thereof. The Church does not add revelation or rule over Scripture. The Church being the bride of Christ, listens to the Word of Christ, which is found in God-breathed Scripture.

Thirdly, it is not a denial that God's Word has been spoken. Apostolic preaching was authoritative in and of itself. Yet, the Apostles proved their message from Scripture, as we see in Acts 17:2, and 18:28, and John commended those in Ephesus for testing those who claimed to be Apostles, Revelation 2:2. The Apostles were not afraid to demonstrate the consistency between their teaching and the Old Testament.

And, finally, sola scriptura is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.

What then is sola scriptura?

The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the "rule of faith" for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience. "

I hope that is helpful... carry on

Oh BTW the historical Ot is the oracles of God given to the Jews, I know the church of Rome has their own and that is OK by me seeing I am not a member of that church.

In Him,

Bill

 

[packermann]

Sola Scriptura isn’t ‘bible onlyists’ nuda scriptura is. Sola Scriptura holds scripture as it’s final authority but does not restrict input from other sources such as the writings of the ECF’s.

Sola Scriptura was fine when using it against the Catholic Church. Martin Luther only used scripture against the Catholic Church to prove his argument. So did the other magisterial Reformers(Luther, Calvin, etc.). Sola Scriptura means what it is translated – soley scripture, which is soley the Bible, which is the Bible only.

In The Freedom of the Christian, Luther claimed that he would only accept that which came from clear reason and the word of God. Nothing about tradittion. Calvin wrote, “Let this be a firm principle: No other word is to be held as the Word of God, and given place as such in the church, than what is contained first in the Law and the Prophets, then in the writings of the apostles; and the only authorized way of teaching in the church is by the prescription and standard of his Word” (Institutes of the Christian Religion). Again, nothing about tradition.


The Bible Is A Catholic Book


But as Sola Scriptura became popular, some more radical Reformers found scripture for other things – believer’s-only baptism, pacifism, etc. The magisterial Reformers then found a benefit in tradition. But this was only when others start seeing something other in the Bible than they. Then they started to sound very, very Catholic.


So then the Lutheran scholars had this conflict. They kind of believe in sola scriptura but they kind of not. And the Lutheran scholars Have these conflicts in other doctrines. Lutheran scholar Rudolf Bultmann could say that the Bible is full of myths, even the myth that Christ rose from dead, and still consider himself a Christian. And evidently the Lutheran Church also considered him a Christian; Bultmann was a Lutheran in good standing all his life.


It is a contradiction to say that the Bible is the ULTIMATE authority but not the ONLY authority. Suppose that there is a belief supported in tradition but not supported in the Bible? My guess is you would reject the belief. Suppose that there is a belief supported in the Bible but not supported in tradition? My guess is you would accept the belief. So all this talk about tradition is just window tradition. The bottom line for you is that it must be in the Bible. That is Bible-only. You say that you believe in sola scriptura but not only the Bible as you authority. But this is a contradiction in terms. “Sola” means “only”!

 

[packermann]

What reasoning?

You made a false claim which I refuted. Nothing you've posted since then has addressed this.

You listed the problems within the Church. But this is only relevant if we Catholics believe that the Church is impeccable. Since we agree that the Church is not impeccable, your list of problems in the Church is irrelevant.

This is why I wrote that I cannot follow your reasoning. Impeccability means no flaws. Since we both agree that the Church has flaws, your list of flaws on the Church make no sense. The issues is that for all the warts on the Catholic Church, it has a lot less warts than Protestantism. And you have not addressed that.

 

[prodromos]

You listed the problems within the Church. But this is only relevant if we Catholics believe that the Church is impeccable. Since we agree that the Church is not impeccable, your list of problems in the Church is irrelevant.

Let me remind you of what you claimed

That was because Orthodox churches saw only scripture and tradition, which caused division among the Orthodox Churches. But in the West, the Catholic Church for the next 500 years remained unified under scripture, tradition, and the magisterium.

As the evidence I posted earlier demonstrated, the Catholic Church was not unified at all during that period, so your statement was false, as was your claim about the Orthodox in the same paragraph.

This is why I wrote that I cannot follow your reasoning. Impeccability means no flaws. Since we both agree that the Church has flaws, your list of flaws on the Church make no sense.

All I did was demonstrate that the Catholic Church was not unified as you had claimed. Nothing was said or implied regarding a claim the the Church is supposedly "impeccable". That is a complete red herring on your part.

The issues is that for all the warts on the Catholic Church, it has a lot less warts than Protestantism. And you have not addressed that.

Why would I need to address that? I am neither Catholic or Protestant so your warts are not my concern. Truth is, however, which is why I responded to your claim.

 

[bcbsr]

The Bible is a Catholic Book. God preserved and compiled it through the Catholic Book. This is why it can only be translated and interpreted it by Catholic Church..

Wrong. The same illogical argument can be made concerning the Old Testament - that only the scribes and Pharisees can interpret it.

Can only Bible publishers interpret the Bible? That's what the Catholic Church did. They wrote none of it, just as the scribes and pharisees wrote none of the Old Testament. And what did the Catholic Church do with the Bible? They suppressed it from the public. And they kept even the masses in Latin. They took away the Bible from the public. They weren't even Bible publishers. They were Bible suppressors. Not only so but with the rise of Catholicism came the rise of illiteracy. In Jesus' day ordinary people would memorize large sections of scripture. Catholicism did just the opposite- discouraging people from reading at all. And that's why there was such a dramatic transition due to the Reformation when people FINALLY got their hands on the Bible. But even to this day the Catholic Church suppresses the scriptures.

 

[BBAS 64]

Wrong. The same illogical argument can be made concerning the Old Testament - that only the scribes and Pharisees can interpret it.

Can only Bible publishers interpret the Bible? That's what the Catholic Church did. They wrote none of it, just as the scribes and pharisees wrote none of the Old Testament. And what did the Catholic Church do with the Bible? They suppressed it from the public. And they kept even the masses in Latin. They took away the Bible from the public. They weren't even Bible publishers. They were Bible suppressors. Not only so but with the rise of Catholicism came the rise of illiteracy. In Jesus' day ordinary people would memorize large sections of scripture. Catholicism did just the opposite- discouraging people from reading at all. And that's why there was such a dramatic transition due to the Reformation when people FINALLY got their hands on the Bible. But even to this day the Catholic Church suppresses the scriptures.

Good day, BCBSR

Just as a side the fallacy of the Roman church interpreting the bible is a sham, I submit they have not because they can not.

Ludwig Ott, while commenting on Pius IX’s papal bull Ineffabilis that defined the dogma of the immaculate conception of Mary, wrote: “The Bull does not give any authentic explanation of the passage [i.e. Gen. 3:15]. It must be observed that the infallibility of the Papal doctrinal decision extends only to the dogma as such and not to the reasons given as leading up to the dogma.” Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, ed. James Canon Bastible (Rockford: Tan Books and Publishers, Inc., reprinted 1974), p. 200.

and here..

Raymond E. Brown: To the best of my knowledge the Roman Catholic Church has never defined the literal sense of a single passage of the Bible.” Raymond E. Brown, The Critical Meaning of the Bible (New York: Paulist Press, 1981), p. 40.

Wrap you head around this:

Roman Catholic apologist Patrick Madrid: . . the dogma being defined here is Peter’s primacy and authority over the Church — not a formal exegesis of Matthew 16. The passages from Matthew 16 and John 21 are given as reasons for defining the doctrine, but they are not themselves the subject of the definition. As anyone familiar with the dogma of papal infallibility knows, the reasons given in a dogmatic definition are not themselves considered infallible; only the result of the deliberations is protected from error. It’s always possible that while the doctrine defined is indeed infallible, some of the proofs adduced for it end up being incorrect. Patrick Madrid, Pope Fiction (San Diego: Basilica Press, 1999), p. 254.



In Him,

Bill