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

[Cruciform]

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

So apparently your chosen sect simply vanished from the earth---leaving absolutely no trace---with the death of the apostle John, and didn't magically spring back into existence until some nineteen-hundred years later. That's your brilliant---and utterly ahistorical and indefensible---claim?

You may as well admit that there is absolutely no trace of the beliefs of your chosen man-made non-Catholic sect in any Christian writings whatsoever prior to the 16th century at the earliest. Why? Because such beliefs simply and demonstrably did not exist in the Christian Church before the 16th-century Protestant Rebellion. They were invented by mere men only a few centuries ago, a clear indication that they are nothing more than the corrupt traditions of men.

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.

Who exactly is "they"? Chapter-and-verse, please.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[CabinetMaker]

So apparently your chosen sect simply vanished from the earth---leaving absolutely no trace---with the death of the apostle John, and didn't magically spring back into existence until some nineteen-hundred years later. That's your brilliant---and utterly ahistorical and indefensible---claim?

I think I understand your confusion. If one believes that salvation comes through a church in any way, shape or form, then they fail to understand that salvation comes only from God, through His Son and that church is just a place where people gather to worship and fellowship. So you see, while sects may come and go, the Body of Christ always remains. All the writings required to keep the Body healthy are to be found in the Bible.

You may as well admit that there is absolutely no trace of the beliefs of your chosen man-made non-Catholic sect in any Christian writings whatsoever prior to the 16th century at the earliest. Why? Because such beliefs simply and demonstrably did not exist in the Christian Church before the 16th-century Protestant Rebellion. They were invented by mere men only a few centuries ago, a clear indication that they are nothing more than the corrupt traditions of men.

Really? I look in the bible and see that Jesus died for the forgiveness of my sins,that He rose on the third day to redeem me yo His father? Are you telling me that you don't believe that?

Who exactly is "they"? Chapter-and-verse, please.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Who do you think Paul and the others were writing to? Unbelievers? Are you really unfamiliar with those passages of scripture?
Matthew 7:15
1 Thessalonians 5:21
Colossians 2:8
There is a good place to start.

 

[PhilipJames]

Hello CM,

I think I understand your confusion. If one believes that salvation comes through a church in any way, shape or form, then they fail to understand that salvation comes only from God, through His Son and that church is just a place where people gather to worship and fellowship.

This a fundamental error on your part. The Church and Christ are ONE. He promised she would never be overcome! And HE certainly dispenses HIS Grace through her. Without the Church, you would have no knowledge of Christ's life, teachings, death, resurrection... You would still be lost in darkness with no hope...

to suggest that salvation did not come to you through the Faith of the Church flies in the face of history, reason and, in fact, scripture itself...


Further the very NT scriptures (which were penned by the Church) that you cherish, belong rightly to the Church... and if you read them honestly you would see that they uphold her authority, an authority that is given to her by Christ Himself, WHO dwells in her.

So you see, while sects may come and go, the Body of Christ always remains. All the writings required to keep the Body healthy are to be found in the Bible.

The Body 'requires' no writings at all; the scriptures do not save us, they testify to Jesus! He saves us! Yet so many refuse to come to HIM, where HE is! In HIS Church! The WORD lives in her, and sustains her with HIS own Body, Blood and Spirit.

Do you not know what makes us ONE in body?

1Cor 10:16
The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?

Because the loaf of bread is one, we, though many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.

If you do not participate in the Table of the Lord, you are NOT a part of the body...


Here is a good place for YOU to start: John 6:53-56

Merry Christmas!
PJ

 

[WonderfulLordJesus]

I think I understand your confusion. If one believes that salvation comes through a church in any way, shape or form, then they fail to understand that salvation comes only from God, through His Son and that church is just a place where people gather to worship and fellowship. So you see, while sects may come and go, the Body of Christ always remains. All the writings required to keep the Body healthy are to be found in the Bible.

I'm not sure everybody understands what they're dealing with. Catholicism has always been about a bunch of men controlling others. It's about carnal power and an earthly kingdom, with a Pope on a throne. They twist scripture to enrich and empower themselves, want men under their thumbs. They're control freaks. Anything not to this end, that is, not enriching the Roman cult, is bad, including scripture, which they used to burn, both the scripture and those caught with scripture.

You are not going to have an honest theological exchange with a Catholic, rather will simply get Catholicism thrown in your face, with all the perversions and fables in their Catechism. If you enjoy this endless dispute, have at it, but, in terms of the true Christian faith, they're simply irrelevant, moldy relics in bizarre costumes, wallowing in error and defanged of their Inquisitions.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Hello CM,




This a fundamental error on your part. The Church and Christ are ONE. He promised she would never be overcome! And HE certainly dispenses HIS Grace through her. Without the Church, you would have no knowledge of Christ's life, teachings, death, resurrection... You would still be lost in darkness with no hope...

to suggest that salvation did not come to you through the Faith of the Church flies in the face of history, reason and, in fact, scripture itself...


Further the very NT scriptures (which were penned by the Church) that you cherish, belong rightly to the Church... and if you read them honestly you would see that they uphold her authority, an authority that is given to her by Christ Himself, WHO dwells in her.

There is not a single verse that says salvation comes through the Body of Christ, not one. The Body is where believers meet to encourage and pray and be together as believers. Salvation comes from God, through God.

The Body 'requires' no writings at all; the scriptures do not save us, they testify to Jesus! He saves us! Yet so many refuse to come to HIM, where HE is! In HIS Church! The WORD lives in her, and sustains her with HIS own Body, Blood and Spirit.

His body is much greater than the RCC. His Body encompasses all who confessed their faith in Jesus regardless of which sect we choose to worship with.

Do you not know what makes us ONE in body?

1Cor 10:16
The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?

Because the loaf of bread is one, we, though many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.

If you do not participate in the Table of the Lord, you are NOT a part of the body...


Here is a good place for YOU to start: John 6:53-56

Merry Christmas!
PJ

So why do Catholics work so hard to use that which is supposed to unite us to divide us? Catholic practice a closed table and that, by definition, divides. The RCC places itself in a seat of judgement that is not theirs.

 

[Dona Bate]

I left off the part that...

GO sadly cannot answer Post #270.

Ok no problem GO I understand exactly why you are unable to answer.

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

Here it is:

Colossians 2:18,20-23

I left off the part that did not apply as I realise that you may have a problem not entirely your own fault....

It may be true that you have looked at the context of Colossians 2:18,20-23 but we were actually discussing Colossians 2:8 and not the verses 2:18,20-23 you're now talking about or have you forgotten?

Here it is again for the umpteenth time to help refresh your memory.....

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.​

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.

No offence GO! Please do not take this the wrong way, but I must point out that you are displaying quite a lot of the systoms of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Have you ever been diagnosed with ADHD?

Symptoms include *missing details, *forgetting things, as well as *frequently switching from one subject to another. Daydream, *become easily confused, and move slowly. *Struggle to follow instructions, not seem to listen when spoken to. Often interrupting conversations or others' activities.*Blurt out inappropriate comments, *show their emotions without restraint, and *act without regard for consequences.
(*Red Flag)

I wish you well and hope this info somehow helps you on the road to recovery!

Until then, take care GO and don't fret about not being able to answer post #270 under the circumstances.

Forget it!

Though to be honest that's never going to be a problem.

:wave2:


God Bless!

 

[Cruciform]

I think I understand your confusion.

No "confusion" whatsoever.

So you see, while sects may come and go, the Body of Christ always remains.

Then your preferred man-made non-Catholic sect must have left some documentable trace in history during the opening centuries of Church history. Please provide TOL readers with examples of the writings of this sect that you claim "is as old as Jesus."

Really? I look in the bible and see that Jesus died for the forgiveness of my sins,that He rose on the third day to redeem me yo His father? Are you telling me that you don't believe that?

I'm referring to those particular doctrines which set your chosen man-made non-Catholic sect apart from the teachings of Christ's one historic Catholic Church, examples of which I listed in my previous post.

Who do you think Paul and the others were writing to? Unbelievers? Are you really unfamiliar with those passages of scripture?

Well, let's take a look at your proof-texts...

Matthew 7:15

Jesus instructs the crowd in his Sermon on the Mount to "Beware of false prophets," and that listeners would "know them by their fruits." How, then, were believers expected to go about avoiding such false teachers? Does Jesus tell them to compare the prophets' teachings with their (believers') personal interpretations of the Bible? Hardly, since there simply was no "Bible" at this time for them to read even if they could have read one (most people were illiterate).

No, rather they were expected to compare the prophets' teachings with those of the apostolic Magisterium of Christ's one historic Church (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). This is the explicit teaching of the New Testament, and of Christ's one historic Church throughout ecclesiastical history right down to our own day.

1 Thessalonians 5:21

And how is one expected to "test all things"?---by comparing all doctrine and practice to the authoritative teachings of the apostolic Magisterium of Christ's one historic Catholic Church. (See just above.)

Colossians 2:8

See above. The problem with your proof-texting is simply that none of your texts says anything whatsoever about how lay believers are expected to actually accomplish what the texts themselves instruct. The biblical texts that I cited above, on the other hand, do exactly that. So much for your claim that lay believers were/are permitted to question (deny or reject) the authoritative teachings of the apostolic Magisterium of Christ's one historic Church.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Cruciform]

I'm not sure everybody understands what they're dealing with. Catholicism has always been about a bunch of men controlling others. It's about carnal power and an earthly kingdom, with a Pope on a throne. They twist scripture to enrich and empower themselves, want men under their thumbs. They're control freaks. Anything not to this end, that is, not enriching the Roman cult, is bad, including scripture, which they used to burn, both the scripture and those caught with scripture.You are not going to have an honest theological exchange with a Catholic, rather will simply get Catholicism thrown in your face, with all the perversions and fables in their Catechism. If you enjoy this endless dispute, have at it, but, in terms of the true Christian faith, they're simply irrelevant, moldy relics in bizarre costumes, wallowing in error and defanged of their Inquisitions.

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

 

[oatmeal]

Cruciform,

When did Jesus Christ design the wardrobes for your priests and nuns?

Do you have the original sketches?

Did God design your altars?

Exodus 20:25 KJV

I think not.

 

[CabinetMaker]

No "confusion" whatsoever.


Then your preferred man-made non-Catholic sect must have left some documentable trace in history during the opening centuries of Church history. Please provide TOL readers with examples of the writings of this sect that you claim "is as old as Jesus."

All the writings used by my church can be found here: www.biblegateway.com. That's it! All the writings we need to test teachings, find wolves, follow traditions.

I'm referring to those particular doctrines which set your chosen man-made non-Catholic sect apart from the teachings of Christ's one historic Catholic Church, examples of which I listed in my previous post.

Well, we don't give even the slightest impression that we worship idols. We don't raise Mary to levels that are not to found in scripture, we don't add traditions and claim that Paul said it was okay to do so, we don't have indulgences kept alone sell them ti finance cathedrals, we don't call our leaders Father. We don't do any of these things because they are not to be found in scripture and that certainly sets us apart from Catholicism.

Well, let's take a look at your proof-texts...


Jesus instructs the crowd in his Sermon on the Mount to "Beware of false prophets," and that listeners would "know them by their fruits." How, then, were believers expected to go about avoiding such false teachers? Does Jesus tell them to compare the prophets' teachings with their (believers') personal interpretations of the Bible? Hardly, since there simply was no "Bible" at this time for them to read even if they could have read one (most people were illiterate).

No, rather they were expected to compare the prophets' teachings with those of the apostolic Magisterium of Christ's one historic Church (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). This is the explicit teaching of the New Testament, and of Christ's one historic Church throughout ecclesiastical history right down to our own day.

Actually, they were not expected to go to the magisterium as it did not exist either. There is absolutely no mention of the magisterium in scripture. Just as there is no mention of sola scriptura, there is no mention of the magisterium so it must not be scriptural either.

And how is one expected to "test all things"?---by comparing all doctrine and practice to the authoritative teachings of the apostolic Magisterium of Christ's one historic Catholic Church. (See just above.)

all we have us scripture. I am sure that Jesus knew that future generations would have the Bible and He knew what would be in it. While the people of His time had the apostles, Christ also provided future generations with a standard that they could use to text teachings against, scripture.

See above. The problem with your proof-texting is simply that none of your texts says anything whatsoever about how lay believers are expected to actually accomplish what the texts themselves instruct. The biblical texts that I cited above, on the other hand, do exactly that. So much for your claim that lay believers were/are permitted to question (deny or reject) the authoritative teachings of the apostolic Magisterium of Christ's one historic Church.

Yes, they do. The texts are addressed to the lay believer. Christ didn't come to instruct the leaders of a church, He came to save all men. Christ spoke to everybody. This is important because it is for men to die and face judgement. We are not judged based on what your church teaches, we are judged based on what we did with Jesus in our life. Did we accept Him and strive to follow Him or did we just surender to a church, an institution of man (this includes the RCC), and followed men.

 

[genuineoriginal]

It may be true that you have looked at the context of Colossians 2:18,20-23 but we were actually discussing Colossians 2:8 and not the verses 2:18,20-23 you're now talking about or have you forgotten?

Yes, I can see why you would not want your man made tradition to be exposed in the light of scripture, which is why you try so hard to ignore the context.

You can follow your tradition of praying to your little "virgin mary" dolls and rubbing beads between your fingers.

It won't help.

 

[WonderfulLordJesus]

Actually, they were not expected to go to the magisterium as it did not exist either. There is absolutely no mention of the magisterium in scripture. Just as there is no mention of sola scriptura, there is no mention of the magisterium so it must not be scriptural either.

You don't understand. Catholicism can have all the things that don't exist it wants. The problem arises when anybody else has something that doesn't exist, even a much worse problem to Catholics if what anybody else has exists. They couldn't burn enough scripture during the Dark Ages, truth, as has been proven, the greatest threat to them.

 

[Cruciform]

When did Jesus Christ design the wardrobes for your priests and nuns? Do you have the original sketches?

When did God design the business suits and ties for your pastors and ministers? Do you have the original sketches? Where are they described in the Bible?

Try again.

 

[Cruciform]

All the writings used by my church can be found here: www.biblegateway.com.

Then your chosen man-made sect must have completely died out while the apostles were still living. So much for your ridiculous claim that your chosen man-made sect "is as old as Jesus." :darwinsm:

Well, we don't give even the slightest impression that we worship idols. We don't raise Mary to levels that are not to found in scripture, we don't add traditions and claim that Paul said it was okay to do so, we don't have indulgences kept alone sell them ti finance cathedrals, we don't call our leaders Father. We don't do any of these things because they are not to be found in scripture and that certainly sets us apart from Catholicism.

And yet, no Christians for the first fifteen-hundred years of Church history held to the distinctive non-Catholic doctrines that your chosen man-made non-Catholic sect seems to have invented within only the past few centuries. So much for your claim that your preferred denomination "is as old as Jesus." Try again.

Actually, they were not expected to go to the magisterium as it did not exist either. There is absolutely no mention of the magisterium in scripture.

Your claim that the apostles were not the authoritative leaders of the early Church is noted. Now go ahead and post your proof that the apostles "did not exist."

Just as there is no mention of sola scriptura, there is no mention of the magisterium so it must not be scriptural either.

Catholics do not reject sola scriptura merely because the term "sola scriptura" does not appear in Scripture, but because the doctrine that Protestants have labeled "sola scriptura" is itself nowhere taught in Scripture.

The word "magisterium" need not be explicitly used in the Bible for the reality of the magisterium to be present in its teachings, and such is certainly the case. Try again.

all we have us scripture.

How, then, could Jesus' immediate hearers possibly "beware of false prophets," seeing that they possessed no Scriptures and could not have read them even if they had them? Your interpretation of these texts simply fails to comport with the context of the New Testament itself.

Also, your claim here contradicts the direct teaching of the New Testament writers themselves, who commanded believers to hold to apostolic Tradition (2 Thess. 2:15; 1 Cor. 11:2) as "God's word" (1 Thess. 2:13). Try again.

I am sure that Jesus knew that future generations would have the Bible and He knew what would be in it. While the people of His time had the apostles, Christ also provided future generations with a standard that they could use to text teachings against, scripture.

• Here you're merely reading into Scripture the traditions (sola scriptura) that you have derived from your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect.
• Nowhere does the Bible state that unwritten (oral) Tradition would somehow magically cease with the writing of the NT documents.
• Jesus never once instructed his apostles to write a single word, but rather commanded them to preach---to deliver the Church's teachings verbally---and Jesus himself never wrote anything whatsoever. It appears that writing wasn't much of a priority for Jesus and the apostles. Try again.

Yes, they do. The texts are addressed to the lay believer.

Some are, some aren't. The Pastoral Epistles, for example, are directed specifically to new bishops (Timothy in particular).

Christ didn't come to instruct the leaders of a church, He came to save all men. Christ spoke to everybody.

As you yourself admit just above, the New Testament was written to Christians, not to unbelievers. Try again.

We are not judged based on what your church teaches, we are judged based on what we did with Jesus in our life.

We will be judged based on our acceptance of and obedience to Christ's teachings as delivered through the authoritative doctrines of Christ's one historic Church. His Church is Christ's chosen instrument for the communication of divine truth (Mt. 28:18-20; Lk. 10:16; Ac. 16:4; Rom. 16:17; 2 Thess. 3:4; 1 Tim. 3:15; 1 Jn. 4:6). Try again.

Did we accept Him and strive to follow Him or did we just surender to a church...

Merely a False Dilemma Fallacy on your part which attempts to separate the Head (Christ) from the Body (Christ's Church), thus in effect "decapitating" the Lord. According to Jesus himself, however, to follow his one historic Church is likewise to follow Christ himself (Lk. 10:16; 1 Tim. 3:15). Try again.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Cruciform]

You don't understand. Catholicism can have all the things that don't exist it wants. The problem arises when anybody else has something that doesn't exist, even a much worse problem to Catholics if what anybody else has exists. They couldn't burn enough scripture during the Dark Ages, truth, as has been proven, the greatest threat to them.

Just more ignorance from WLJ, who just can't seem to stop publically embarrassing himself.

 

[oatmeal]

When did God design the business suits and ties for your pastors and ministers? Do you have the original sketches? Where are they described in the Bible?

Try again.

God didn't design them.

The clothing design is not found in God's word.

Do you think God approves of your altars?

I think not

Since when have you cared what God thought?

 

[Cruciform]

God didn't design them. The clothing design is not found in God's word.

Then what exactly is your point?

Do you think God approves of your altars? I think not.

Why not?


By the way, I'm still waiting for your response to Post #275 above. What say you?

 

[CabinetMaker]

Then your chosen man-made sect must have completely died out while the apostles were still living. So much for your ridiculous claim that your chosen man-made sect "is as old as Jesus." :darwinsm:

And yet, no Christians for the first fifteen-hundred years of Church history held to the distinctive non-Catholic doctrines that your chosen man-made non-Catholic sect seems to have invented within only the past few centuries. So much for your claim that your preferred denomination "is as old as Jesus." Try again.

So basically you do not believe that the Bible contains the teachings of Jesus. Noted.

Cruc will reply: merely a straw man fallacy on your part. (Or some other claim of fallacy as his mood dictates)

No, it's not a fallacy. You do not believe that the teachings of Christ do not exist outside the RCC. You do not believe that scripture contains God inspired word. That is sad.

Your claim that the apostles were not the authoritative leaders of the early Church is noted. Now go ahead and post your proof that the apostles "did not exist."

No, never claimed that, they were the leaders. But don't forget that the sermon on the mount was not delivered to the Apostles. It was probably not the only time He gave that sermon either.

Catholics do not reject sola scriptura merely because the term "sola scriptura" does not appear in Scripture, but because the doctrine that Protestants have labeled "sola scriptura" is itself nowhere taught in Scripture.

Catholics reject sola scriptura because adherence to scripture guts their most favored doctrines and traditions. Remember, you are not able to defend scriptural challenges against Marian doctrines and Paul's traditions.

The word "magisterium" need not be explicitly used in the Bible for the reality of the magisterium to be present in its teachings, and such is certainly the case. Try again.

so, by the same logic! sola scriptura does not need to be explicitly used in scripture for the reality of its teachings to be true. Certainly glad we got that cleared up.

How, then, could Jesus' immediate hearers possibly "beware of false prophets," seeing that they possessed no Scriptures and could not have read them even if they had them? Your interpretation of these texts simply fails to comport with the context of the New Testament itself.

My understanding of these texts is based on the fact that they are texts, written texts. Certainly during the time of the Apostles, people had the Apostles. But God knew that that wouldn't last. Remember the Pharisees and their negation of scripture by adding their own traditions, so a God gave us the Bible so that we, today, would have what we need.

Also, your claim here contradicts the direct teaching of the New Testament writers themselves, who commanded believers to hold to apostolic Tradition (2 Thess. 2:15; 1 Cor. 11:2) as "God's word" (1 Thess. 2:13). Try again.

as soon as you post that list of traditions Paul was referring to, you'll have an argument. Until then, you got nothing worth listening to.

• Here you're merely reading into Scripture the traditions (sola scriptura) that you have derived from your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect.
• Nowhere does the Bible state that unwritten (oral) Tradition would somehow magically cease with the writing of the NT documents.
• Jesus never once instructed his apostles to write a single word, but rather commanded them to preach---to deliver the Church's teachings verbally---and Jesus himself never wrote anything whatsoever. It appears that writing wasn't much of a priority for Jesus and the apostles. Try again.

Did Jesus tell His Apostles that it was okay to introduce traditions that contradict what Jesus taught? Mary as coredemptrix? Indulgences? Pray to Mary? You have never once produced a scripture from Jesus saying we can add to His teachings as we see fit. Put up or shut up.

Some are, some aren't. The Pastoral Epistles, for example, are directed specifically to new bishops (Timothy in particular).

So they would be helpful to anybody who leads a church in the name of Jesus, wouldn't they.

As you yourself admit just above, the New Testament was written to Christians, not to unbelievers. Try again.

. I would disagree with that. I became a believer by reading scripture. The bible is written to all men, just like Jesus was sent to all men. Not all will believe.

We will be judged based on our acceptance of and obedience to Christ's teachings as delivered through the authoritative doctrines of Christ's one historic Church. His Church is Christ's chosen instrument for the communication of divine truth (Mt. 28:18-20; Lk. 10:16; Ac. 16:4; Rom. 16:17; 2 Thess. 3:4; 1 Tim. 3:15; 1 Jn. 4:6). Try again.

no. You are wrong. The Body of Christ does not play a roll in salvation or judgement.

Merely a False Dilemma Fallacy on your part which attempts to separate the Head (Christ) from the Body (Christ's Church), thus in effect "decapitating" the Lord. According to Jesus himself, however, to follow his one historic Church is likewise to follow Christ himself (Lk. 10:16; 1 Tim. 3:15). Try again.

There'd is no false dilemma, just a horrendous misrepresentation of the Body of Christ by you. The Body of Christ is the body of believers and Christ is its leader (head).

 

[Cruciform]

So basically you do not believe that the Bible contains the teachings of Jesus. Noted.

Wrong again. I simply reject your claim that your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect "is as old as Jesus," since sectarian doctrines such as sola scriptura, "believers-only" baptism, sola fide, and the Eucharist as a mere memorial did not exist prior to being invented during and following the 16th-century Protestant Rebellion. Try again.

Cruc will reply: merely a straw man fallacy on your part. (Or some other claim of fallacy as his mood dictates)

Yes, it was a Straw Man Fallacy. And it has nothing to do with "moods," but simply with your poor reasoning skills. Again, if you don't want to be called out on your fallacious arguments, I'd recommend not attempting to pass them off here as proof of anything whatsoever. Try again.

No, it's not a fallacy. You do not believe that the teachings of Christ do not exist outside the RCC. You do not believe that scripture contains God inspired word.

A straightforward and deliberate lie on your part (Ex. 20:16; Prov. 19:5). May God help you.

No, never claimed that, they were the leaders.

So much for your claim, then, that the Magisterium of Christ's one historic Church "did not exist." My statements therefore stand exactly as posted.

Catholics reject sola scriptura because adherence to scripture guts their most favored doctrines and traditions.

Catholics reject sola scriptura for two reasons:

• sola scriptura is itself nowhere taught---or even hinted at---in "Scripture alone," and so merely refutes itself.
• Scripture itself instructs believers to receive and obey apostolic Tradition.

Try again.

so, by the same logic! sola scriptura does not need to be explicitly used in scripture for the reality of its teachings to be true. Certainly glad we got that cleared up.

Agreed. Now go ahead and post your supposed biblical proof for the 16th-century Protestant notion of sola scriptura. Even one single verse would be great.

My understanding of these texts is based on the fact that they are texts, written texts. Certainly during the time of the Apostles, people had the Apostles. But God knew that that wouldn't last.

Just another tradition from your chosen man-made sect that you're reading into the Scriptures (so much for private interpretation). In fact, long before the apostles' martyrdoms, they had already ordained successors (bishops) to continue their apostolic ministry in Christ's Church. Jesus left behind not a book, but an infallible teaching Church. The book only came centuries later, when it was codified and canonized in the 4th century A.D.

Remember the Pharisees and their negation of scripture by adding their own traditions...

Yes---exactly as Protestants have been adding their corrupt traditions contrary to the authoritative teachings of Christ's one historic Church now for five centuries.

...so a God gave us the Bible so that we, today, would have what we need.

Still waiting for even one biblical verse that actually states any such thing. No Christian believed any such notion until it was invented during the 16th-century Protestant Rebellion. Try again.

...as soon as you post that list of traditions Paul was referring to, you'll have an argument. Until then, you got nothing worth listening to.

Already answered in previous posts. My statements stand exactly as posted.

Did Jesus tell His Apostles that it was okay to introduce traditions that contradict what Jesus taught?

Of course not, which is why no apostolic tradition contradicts anything taught by the Lord.

Mary as coredemptrix?

Cite the Gospel text in which Jesus states that Mary is not Co-Redemptrix. If you cannot, then Mary as Co-Redemptrix does not in fact "contradict" any teaching by Jesus Christ.

Indulgences?

Cite the Gospel text in which Jesus states that the doctrine of Indulgences is unacceptable.

Pray to Mary?

Cite the Gospel text in which Jesus states that Christians should not invoke the intercession of past Saints.

So they would be helpful to anybody who leads a church in the name of Jesus, wouldn't they.

Well, if they happen to be a bishop (ordained by another bishop), priest (ordained by a bishop), or deacon (also ordained by a bishop), since the Pastoral Epistles were written primarily to instruct these particular ordained officeholders in Christ's Church.

I would disagree with that.

From your previous post: "The texts are addressed to the lay believer." :doh:

no. You are wrong. The Body of Christ does not play a roll in salvation or judgement.

Your rejection of the biblical texts that I cited---which more than demonstrate that divine doctrine and redemption are indeed communicated by God by means of Christ's one historic Church---are noted.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[CabinetMaker]

Wrong again. I simply reject your claim that your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect "is as old as Jesus," since sectarian doctrines such as sola scriptura, "believers-only" baptism, sola fide, and the Eucharist as a mere memorial did not exist prior to being invented during and following the 16th-century Protestant Rebellion. Try again.

My church us as old ad Jesus because we follow what Jesus taught. Is that so hard to understand?

Yes, it was a Straw Man Fallacy. And it has nothing to do with "moods," but simply with your poor reasoning skills. Again, if you don't want to be called out on your fallacious arguments, I'd recommend not attempting to pass them off here as proof of anything whatsoever. Try again.


A straightforward and deliberate lie on your part (Ex. 20:16; Prov. 19:5). May God help you.

It's not a lie, it's a conclusion I have reached based on your participation on those site. If you feel that it is a lie then I suggest you look at what you say.

So much for your claim, then, that the Magisterium of Christ's one historic Church "did not exist." My statements therefore stand exactly as posted.

See below.

Catholics reject sola scriptura for two reasons:

• sola scriptura is itself nowhere taught---or even hinted at---in "Scripture alone," and so merely refutes itself.
• Scripture itself instructs believers to receive and obey apostolic Tradition.

Try again.

Agreed. Now go ahead and post your supposed biblical proof for the 16th-century Protestant notion of sola scriptura. Even one single verse would be great.

see below.

Just another tradition from your chosen man-made sect that you're reading into the Scriptures (so much for private interpretation). In fact, long before the apostles' martyrdoms, they had already ordained successors (bishops) to continue their apostolic ministry in Christ's Church. Jesus left behind not a book, but an infallible teaching Church. The book only came centuries later, when it was codified and canonized in the 4th century A.D.

Which one of the original twelve Apostles appointed Paul? Jesus set a precident by directly selecting Paul to do what Peter would not.

Yes---exactly as Protestants have been adding their corrupt traditions contrary to the authoritative teachings of Christ's one historic Church now for five centuries.

You cannot corrupt that which is already corrupt so the Protesants are doing nothing more than attempting to correct it. Sadly, Protesants can and do add their own corrupt teachings to scripture. Prosperity Gospels comes to mind.

Still waiting for even one biblical verse that actually states any such thing. No Christian believed any such notion until it was invented during the 16th-century Protestant Rebellion. Try again.

See below

Already answered in previous posts. My statements stand exactly as posted.

So nothing.


This is below

Of course not, which is why no apostolic tradition contradicts anything taught by the Lord.


Cite the Gospel text in which Jesus states that Mary is not Co-Redemptrix. If you cannot, then Mary as Co-Redemptrix does not in fact "contradict" any teaching by Jesus Christ.


Cite the Gospel text in which Jesus states that the doctrine of Indulgences is unacceptable.


Cite the Gospel text in which Jesus states that Christians should not invoke the intercession of past Saints.

You claim to have a degree in philosophy and this is your argument? You just proved sola scripture is doctrinally sound. Don't believe me? Cite one gospel text in which Jesus states the doctrine of sola scriptura is unacceptable.

Well, if they happen to be a bishop (ordained by another bishop), priest (ordained by a bishop), or deacon (also ordained by a bishop), since the Pastoral Epistles were written primarily to instruct these particular ordained officeholders in Christ's Church.

Which Apostle ordained Paul?

From your previous post: "The texts are addressed to the lay believer." :doh:

Non believers are lay people as well. That they don't believe does not mean they will never believe.

Your rejection of the biblical texts that I cited---which more than demonstrate that divine doctrine and redemption are indeed communicated by God by means of Christ's one historic Church---are noted.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

You haven't cited any versus, you have only cited Catholic interpretations of those versus. Big difference there.