ECT NO, THE BIBLE IS NOT THE CHRISTIAN'S ONLY AUTHORITY

[wonderingjew]

Thank you SF for reminding me too...

Thank you SF for reminding me too...

If you care to read the whole text, you'll see that John Chrysostom's problem isn't with Jews because they are racially/ethnically Jewish but rather that they still sought and preached justification through the old law.

Unfortunately, I have read extensively the entire text and there are some very outstanding tenets within it but a gold ring is beautiful until you realize it is in the nose of a hog. What else do you suppose other than ethnic reasons were these things said and done? If you present a religious hatred on the part of Y'Shua for the Hebrews you have been caught in error.
You as an intelligent being know that a mass of people can be presented with a plethora of reasons for why they hate someone or disown someone or condemn someone but all the while that mistress called a "religious spirit" is behind it.
Don't mis-read me though, I have great admiration and respect for the Catholic and the devotion displayed in prayer, in faithfulness and in care. It is just too bad the catholic church was at first a relationship, then it morphed into a religion and then it morphed into a business.

 

[csuguy]

Back to Post #205.


The question is whose particular doctrinal tradition---that of Christ's one historic Catholic Church, or of your recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect---is in fact that one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself in 33 A.D., and whose interpretations are therefore bindingly authoritative upon all believers everywhere. Go ahead, then, and post your proof in support of your chosen man-made sect.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

It is not a question of which sect is correct, it is a question of on what basis do the beliefs put forth by these sects rest - and does that basis truly justify the belief. It is a matter of seeking the truth vs simply accepting whatever they tell you on the pulpit. No sect has the full truth.

Tradition for traditions sake is also meaningless. The Jews were rebuked by Christ for just the mindset you are promoting: putting man's tradition before God.

At any rate, the church that Jesus founded is a spiritual one that is not confined to the erroneous doctrinal boundaries established by men. If you think that what God cares about is subscribing to the right set of beliefs, you do not understand the Gospel. Indeed - all knowledge that we possess is partial and will pass away before the fulness of the truth that shall be revealed by God when all is said and done. (1 Cor 13)

 

[Spitfire]

Unfortunately, I have read extensively the entire text and there are some very outstanding tenets within it but a gold ring is beautiful until you realize it is in the nose of a hog. What else do you suppose other than ethnic reasons were these things said and done? If you present a religious hatred on the part of Y'Shua for the Hebrews you have been caught in error.

God himself through the prophet Isaiah began to express his displeasure with the old ways of ritual purity in ethnic/national Israel in Isaiah 1, saying (among other things) "Offer sacrifice no more in vain: incense is an abomination to me. The new moons, and the sabbaths, and other festivals I will not abide, your assemblies are wicked. My soul hateth your new moons, and your solemnities: they are become troublesome to me, I am weary of bearing them. And when you stretch forth your hands, I will turn away my eyes from you: and when you multiply prayer, I will not hear: for your hands are full of blood. Wash yourselves, be clean, take away the evil of your devices from my eyes: cease to do perversely, Learn to do well: seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge for the fatherless, defend the widow. And then come, and accuse me, saith the Lord: if your sins be as scarlet, they shall be made as white as snow: and if they be red as crimson, they shall be white as wool" (verses 13-18).

I think John Chrysostom expresses very similar sentiment and ideas. God himself uses some pretty harsh language. Once again the problem is not simply that anyone is Hebrew/Jewish.

 

[oatmeal]

He might be, though I doubt it. Invitation notwithstanding, he wouldn't wear the wedding garment.

I am not the bride of Christ, I am a member in particular in the body of Christ.

 

[oatmeal]

Jesus' quotation of Scripture certainly does not prove sola scriptura. No one is disputing the fact that Scripture is authoritative. What we dispute is the 16th-century Protestant notion that ONLY Scripture is authoritative, a belief that is itself directly contradicted by Scripture (see this). Thus, you still have not produced a single biblical text which teaches---or even implies---sola scriptura. Try again?



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruiform
+T+

Jesus Christ's ministry was founded upon the written word of God only.

Of course, it took revelation from God for him to deal with specific situations even as his disciples had to receive revelation at times to deal with specific situations.

The only written doctrine authored by God for all to live by is scripture.

You may claim, or I may claim that "God told me to do or say such and such" but if such and such contradicts what the written word of God says, then it was not God telling you or me.

Only God's written word is the benchmark for truth

 

[oatmeal]

Hello oatmeal,



We base our beliefs on and in Our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, Himself! And HE dwells in HIS Church!

The scriptures testify to HIM as does HIS Church!

How sad that so many search the scriptures, trusting that in them they have eternal life, yet they refuse to come to HIM and receive that LIFE.

You too, oatmeal, are invited to the wedding feast of the Lamb of God!

Peace!
PJ

What do you know about Jesus Christ? and from where did you learn it?

Did Jesus Christ come down from the right hand of God to personally teach you and to be interviewed by you?

Or is your source of knowledge about Jesus Christ available to all?

Because it is found only in scripture, God word in writing.

 

[oatmeal]

I agree with the above quoted. All cruciform is really doing is making a noise so that you can't get a word in edgeways. It helps him to believe that he didn't make a mistake converting to Catholicism. Have you noticed how the catholic converts around here are so much more pushy than the baby-baptized ones? They keep ranting on about authority and how many different protestant denominations there are like a record stuck in a groove (if you can still remember records!) They are no longer people, just machines churning out the same widget day in and day out. The machines don't know why they are doing this but it is all they know how to do so they carry on doing it in the hope that it means something. Perhaps one day cruciform is going to wake up and remember that 20 years ago he used to be a person.

I won't disagree with that.

 

[oatmeal]

But not every organization can actually demonstrate---from Divine Revelation and the testimony of history---that it is in fact that one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself in 33 A.D. The Catholic Church, however, has done exactly that. Your chosen recently-invented man-made non-Catholic sect, by contrast, has not.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

If the majority of your doctrine was founded in scripture rather than your traditions, you might have a case.

 

[CabinetMaker]

...declares the guy who can't even manage to accurately state what the Catholic Church actually believes and teaches. Clearly, you're the very last individual who would be able to discern whether I have succeeded or not. Thus, your opinion here means exactly nothing.

First, I note that you cannot defend your beliefs. Second, I have not stated what the church believes, you do that. I simply challenge you on those beliefs and point out the logical fallacies in them.

Again, you have no idea what you're talking about. I've been contacted by at least four people who were either seriously considering becoming Catholic, or were actually in the process of entering the Catholic Church, in part on the basis of my efforts on this forum. In any case, even if I were aware of no one on TOL who was moved toward the Catholic faith because of my involvement here, it would simply be irrelevant, since it is not me but rather the Lord himself who's in charge of the practical results of the communication of divine truth.

You are absolutely correct when you say it is God whi us charge.

Only according to the opinion of your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect, which---because it is demonstrably not that one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ in 33 A.D.---possesses no inherent doctrinal authority whatsoever. Try again.

My denomination is as old as Jesus as Jeus is its leader as we follow Christ's teachings. The Marian doctrins and catholic traditions are not taught by the Holy Spirit. If they were, there would clear biblical support for them. As you have repeatedly proven, you cannot support your man made doctrines from scripture.

I've already answered this Straw Man Fallacy.

if what you assert here is in fact true, you should easily be able to point to the list of the traditions Paul was specifically referring and your detailed, point by point, response to post 518. If you can't, then it's not a strawman. Note, simply replying to a post does not mean that you have responded to the content in the post.

...just as your "arguments" always reduce to "Because my preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect says so."

My arguments always reduce to, "the scripture says..." And then I cite chapter and verse. I may offer a commentary or an opinion but my arguments are always based on scripture.

 

[Dona Bate]

Actually Not!

The Greek word for “philosophy,” philosophia, literally means “love of wisdom”.

..............

In other words, everything that comes from the "magisterium".
Thank you for proving I was right.

Thank you for removing half my post which proves you are wrong..

Here you GO again...

Actually Not!

The Greek word for “philosophy,” philosophia, literally means “love of wisdom”. Paul is not talking about "traditions" in the plural. If GO had even bothered to check Colossians 2:8 he would have noticed that it clearly states* "tradition" singular and NOT "traditions " plural.GO's other major error is that he applies this to the Catholic Church while Paul is clearly talking about the secular philosophy which itself erroniously teaches that humans have all the essentials they need on earth for self-sufficiency without a need for God.

GO's interpretation of Colossians 2:8 is a cheap foolish attempt to ridicule the Catholic Church. His woefull interpretation of verse 2:8 practically murdered the scripture. All for a cheap thrill for which he 'thinks' there are no consequences.

No, I looked at the context, which you did not do, and it accurately portrays the Roman Catholic sect's tradition.

Did you really? Here's what you said....

Actually, this is the reference by Paul that includes the reality of later traditional teachings from the Roman Catholic sect:

Colossians 2:8 *8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.​

GO's earlier statement that he looked at the context is refuted by GO himself.

If GO, checks Psalm 101:7 and Proverbs 6:16-19, he will see that there are consequences for "a false witness who speaks lies, and one who sows discord among brethren".


God Bless!

According to those verses, the magisterium is in for a world of hurt at the judgment.

You mean you hope rather than actually see this "according to those verses..." Otherwise scripture says that you have "no hope at all" (Romans 8:24) if you are actually seeing these words in Psalm 101:70 and Proverbs 6:16-19 "...the magisterium is in for a world of hurt at the judgment." ?

That is, if he believes the Bible!?

This question remains unanswered by GO because it too has been erased by him from my original quote. Why? You can draw your own conclusions on GO's reasons for doing so.

God Bless!

 

[genuineoriginal]

Thank you for removing half my post which proves you are wrong..

I left off the part that did not apply.
There was nothing in the part I left off that proved you right or proved me wrong.

Here you GO again... Did you really?

Yes, I really did look at the context, and you did not.

Here it is:

Colossians 2:18,20-23 18 Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, 20 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, 21 (Touch not; taste not; handle not; 22 Which all are to perish with the using; ) after the commandments and doctrines of men? 23 Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body: not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh.​

The Roman Catholic sect worships angels and adds commandments of men and doctrines of men that they subject their followers to.
Oh, sure, these things have a show of wisdom, they look like humility, they involve neglecting the body.

But the traditions of the Roman Catholic sect are not from God.

 

[Cruciform]

The words of your, and I mean your church fathers, have propagated and in writing damned and cursed innocent Jews whom the Messiah came to save and rather than admit to the reality of this and a multitude of other sayings(as well as actions) i/e murder, forced conversion and finally motivating such animals like A. Hitlr and Mohammed into creating hateful and wicked practices.It's ok to admit to being in error and it is just as well to admit the true history of a group of religious spirits and their hate but it is unconscionable to continue in denial and never come to a place of forgiveness. I can forgive the RCC and I can forgive as crazy as it sound Hitlr but to try to come out as a truly called out faithful assembly is unethical. I don't give the protestants a pass either since they were caught up in a hatred for the people that Y'Shua called His brothers. As catholics Im sure there are many "good works" you can point to but I'm sure no-one falls for that either.Messiah said to make the tree good and its fruit good or vice versa. My thought would be that either do one or the other or get out of the farming business altogether.A Man Called Saint John by the RCC said as follows. It really doesn't matter who tries to rescind the statements but these were the true feelings of the RCC at the time."The wicked and unclean fast of the Jews is now at our doors. Thought it is a fast, do not wonder that I have called it unclean. What is done contrary to God's purpose, be it sacrifice or fast, is the most abominable of all things. Their wicked fast will begin after five days. Ten days ago, or more than ten, I anticipated this and gave an exhortation with the hope it would make your brothers safe. Let no one find fault and say my discourse was untimely because I gave it so many days beforehand. When a fever threatens, or any other disease, physicians anticipate this and with many remedies make safe and secure the body of the man who will be seized by the fever; they hurry to snatch his body from the dangers which threaten it before the patient experiences their onset."Calling the apple of Gods eye a disease or unclean or even contrary to Gods purpose is both unlearned and self incriminating since if those that rejected Messiah (and there were many many others that accepted Him) if that rejection brought you the opportunity:hammer: to be saved then you should be grateful and humbled by the truth in Scripture that states that God so loved "The World" not the catholic religious zealots who if they would be humble and ask for the forgiveness for their fathers sins maybe things would be a bit nicer on this site and in the world.

Like yourself, I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about here. At least try to make sense. In any case, this utterly fails to prove your prior unsubstantiated claim that "the Messiah came to tear down religious organization and rid us of go betweens like priests." Try again.

 

[Cruciform]

Lumen gentium 16 from catholic dogma states that muslims worship the same God as Catholics. God forbid since allah a false god created by a catholic and spread to the earlier muslims cannot be nor with a great stretch even be imaged as Y'Shua Ha'Moshiac. I was wondering how you could explain this belief with the RCC?

Given that this is completely off topic, you'll need to start another thread on this subject.

 

[Cruciform]

It is not a question of which sect is correct, it is a question of on what basis do the beliefs put forth by these sects rest - and does that basis truly justify the belief. It is a matter of seeking the truth vs simply accepting whatever they tell you on the pulpit. No sect has the full truth.Tradition for traditions sake is also meaningless. The Jews were rebuked by Christ for just the mindset you are promoting: putting man's tradition before God.At any rate, the church that Jesus founded is a spiritual one that is not confined to the erroneous doctrinal boundaries established by men. If you think that what God cares about is subscribing to the right set of beliefs, you do not understand the Gospel. Indeed - all knowledge that we possess is partial and will pass away before the fulness of the truth that shall be revealed by God when all is said and done. (1 Cor 13)

Again, the assumptions and opinions that you have derived from your preferred recently-invented man-made non-Catholic sect are noted.

 

[Cruciform]

Only God's written word is the benchmark for truth

[1] Sola scriptura is itself utterly unbiblical, and so merely refutes itself (see this).

[2] I challenge you to cite a single biblical text that teaches---or even implies---the numerical sufficiency of Scripture (sola scriptura).​

Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Cruciform]

If the majority of your doctrine was founded in scripture rather than your traditions, you might have a case.

Your comment here merely begs the question in favor of the erroneous 16th-century notion of sola scriptura, and so simply falls flat. Try again.

 

[Cruciform]

My denomination is as old as Jesus...

Then you should have no trouble producing Christian writings from the first centuries of the Church which testify to the particular beliefs and teachings of your chosen sect (e.g., sola scriptura, sola fide, "believers-only" baptism, the Eucharist as a mere memorial, anti-Incarnationalism (anti-sacramentalism), anti-Trinitarianism, etc.). Go ahead, then, and cite these writings, and document your sect's theological position in ecclesiastical history.

The Marian doctrins and catholic traditions are not taught by the Holy Spirit. If they were, there would clear biblical support for them.

This is merely a statement of your own man-made non-Catholic sect's tradition of sola scriptura, which is itself utterly unbiblical and so simply self-refuting (see this).

My arguments always reduce to, "the scripture says..."

...which then further reduces to "My chosen man-made non-Catholic sect's interpretation of Scripture says..." Again: Every appeal to the Bible amounts to an appeal to some human being's interpretation of the Bible.


The rest of your post has already been sufficiently answered and corrected in previous posts.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[CabinetMaker]

Then you should have no trouble producing Christian writings from the first centuries of the Church which testify to the particular beliefs and teachings of your chosen sect (e.g., sola scriptura, sola fide, "believers-only" baptism, the Eucharist as a mere memorial, anti-Incarnationalism (anti-sacramentalism), anti-Trinitarianism, etc.). Go ahead, then, and cite these writings, and document your sect's theological position in ecclesiastical history.

I can! Pick up a bible and there it is, everything we need to know and follow Jesus.

This is merely a statement of your own man-made non-Catholic sect's tradition of sola scriptura, which is itself utterly unbiblical and so simply self-refuting (see this).

Given that you are unable to refute my challenges to Marian and Catholic Trafitions doctrines, I would be forced to conclude that the man made doctrines and traditions of your sect of Christianity fair no better.

...which then further reduces to "My chosen man-made non-Catholic sect's interpretation of Scripture says..." Again: Every appeal to the Bible amounts to an appeal to some human being's interpretation of the Bible.

If those interpretations were of men then you should no trouble defeating them if your interpretations were of the Holy Spirit. That you have not been bake to do so tells me much about who really leads Catholic interpretations.

The rest of your post has already been sufficiently answered and corrected in previous posts.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Your only answer is that I don't have the authority to question your church, which is no answer at all. Answeres address the actual content in a post. Your responses don't address the actual questions raised so you have answered nothing.

 

[Cruciform]

I can! Pick up a bible and there it is, everything we need to know and follow Jesus.

Again, if your opinion is correct, then the beliefs and teachings of your favored man-made non-Catholic sect should be clearly represented in the writings of the Christian Church of the first few centuries of her history. Where are these writings? Please reference them so that we can read them for ourselves.

Your only answer is that I don't have the authority to question your church, which is no answer at all.

QUESTION: Did 1st-century believers have the authority to question the doctrines delivered to them by the apostolic Magisterium? (Before answering, better read Mt. 28:18-20; Lk. 10:16; Ac. 16:4; 1 Thess. 2:13; 2 Thess. 3:4; 1 Tim. 3:15; 1 Jn. 4:6.) If not, then neither do you or any layman have the right to "question" (in the sense of denying or rejecting) the doctrines delivered to believers by the Magisterium of Christ's one historic Church today.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[CabinetMaker]

Again, if your opinion is correct, then the beliefs and teachings of your favored man-made non-Catholic sect should be clearly represented in the writings of the Christian Church of the first few centuries of her history. Where are these writings? Please reference them so that we can read them for ourselves.

the bible us very clear. Everything that I and the church I attend believe can be found there. No additional writings are required.

QUESTION: Did 1st-century believers have the authority to question the doctrines delivered to them by the apostolic Magisterium? (Before answering, better read Mt. 28:18-20; Lk. 10:16; Ac. 16:4; 1 Thess. 2:13; 2 Thess. 3:4; 1 Tim. 3:15; 1 Jn. 4:6.) If not, then neither do you or any layman have the right to "question" (in the sense of denying or rejecting) the doctrines delivered to believers by the Magisterium of Christ's one historic Church today.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Yes, they did. We see that they were warned on several occasions to beware of wolves in sheeps clothing, to test all things and to not be led astray by false traditions. Even in the earliest days of the Body of Christ, God knew that there would be those seeking to steal the faithful away.