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

[meshak]

Not on behalf of the government meshak.

Jesus is the Lord, not anyone else, not even the government.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

. . and you need to practice what you 'preach'.

You need to preach what True Believers are practicing! The problem
is, you don't have a clue what they're practicing!

 

[CabinetMaker]

Not liking my statements doesn't make you right (Post #66).

History makes me right. I note that you completely ignite that indulgences were introduced over a thousand years after Paul died. Why are you ignoring that? An inconvenient truth, perhaps?

 

[PhilipJames]

Certainly far more reliable and Christ centered than any teaching coming out of Rome.

This statement shows that you have no idea what it is that 'Rome' teaches. (and now who's ducking a question...)

I find it very interesting that you are working so very hard to deflect the question away from Paul and substitute others. Why is that? Why don't you just answer the question I asked?

Your question was answered. That you refuse to examine the ECF's that I mentioned is your problem not mine.

Peace!
PJ

 

[Cruciform]

I am saying because there are many people doing it. You need consideration for the readers. It is the least of Christian thing to do.

Post #79.

 

[CabinetMaker]

This statement shows that you have no idea what it is that 'Rome' teaches. (and now who's ducking a question...)

You forget, I was raised in Rome. Thourghly indoctrinated. Not thourghly enough to not ask questions, enough to know the teachings.

Your question was answered. That you refuse to examine the ECF's that I mentioned is your problem not mine.

Peace!
PJ

No, it hasn't been answered. I asked about one person specifically: Paul. You have given me a whole bunch of other names and their writings but that fails to answer my question about Paul.

 

[Cruciform]

History makes me right.

• Not even close. First, the doctrine of indulgences is entirely biblical and consistent with the theological teaching of Christ's one historic Church from the beginning (see this, this, this, this, and this).
• Second, your opinion fails to account for the reality of doctrinal development in the Church, a fact which Christ's one historic Church has recognized and taught from the very beginning (see this, this, and this).
• Third, you falsely assume that Scripture was composed in the form of a handbook of systematic theology or a compendium of organized, fully-formed doctrines, an error that even beginning Bible students know better than to make. Unfortunately, such an approach to Scripture is not only embarrassingly naive, but simply fails to take the Bible for what it is.
• Therefore, your assumptions and claims on this and other points simply fall flat.

I note that you completely ignite that indulgences were introduced over a thousand years after Paul died. Why are you ignoring that? An inconvenient truth, perhaps?

Not only did I not ignore it, but I have now directly answered it twice, both here and in Post #66 above. Your comments proceed from a basic and (willingly) persistent ignorance of Catholic belief and teaching. My previous statements stand exactly as posted.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Cruciform]

You forget, I was raised in Rome. Thourghly indoctrinated. Not thourghly enough to not ask questions, enough to know the teachings.

QUESTION: If you supposedly "know the teachings" as you claim here, how do explain the glaring fact that you routinely and repeatedly misstate and misrepresent Catholic teachings on this forum, indicating a vast personal ignorance of what the Catholic Church actually believes and teaches? :think:

 

[CabinetMaker]

• Not even close. First, the doctrine of indulgences is entirely biblical and consistent with the theological teaching of Christ's one historic Church from the beginning (see this, this, this, this, and this).
• Second, your opinion fails to account for the reality of doctrinal development in the Church, a fact which Christ's one historic Church has recognized and taught from the very beginning (see this, this, and this).
• Third, you falsely assume that Scripture was composed in the form of a handbook of systematic theology or a compendium of organized, fully-formed doctrines, an error that even beginning Bible students know better than to make. Unfortunately, such an approach to Scripture is not only embarrassingly naive, but simply fails to take the Bible for what it is.
• Therefore, your assumptions and claims on this and other points simply fall flat.

Not only did I not ignore it, but I have now directly answered it twice, both here and in Post #66 above. Your comments proceed from a basic and (willingly) persistent ignorance of Catholic belief and teaching. My previous statements stand exactly as posted.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

All you have done, yet again, is answer your own strawman. I asked for a list of traditions Paul was refering to. I pointed out that he couldn't possibly have included indulgences as the first indulgences were not offered until Pope Urban II in about 1095. Your response is to try and infer from Paul's statement that any tradition Rome sees fit to add was covered by Paul. The simple fact of the matter is that literally have no idea what traditions Paul was refering to. Unless and until you can document the specific traditions Paul was refering to I have absolutely no reason to accept the very man made traditions of your magisterium.

Document Paul's traditions or accept your defeat gracefully.

 

[CabinetMaker]

QUESTION: If you supposedly "know the teachings" as you claim here, how do explain the glaring fact that you routinely and repeatedly misstate and misrepresent Catholic teachings on this forum, indicating a vast personal ignorance of what the Catholic Church actually believes and teaches? :think:

I am freed from Rome's false mandates and doctrines so I can see Rome's teachings for what they are: man made traditions that nullify the Gospel of Christ. I can represent the teachings for what they are instead of what you wish them to be.

 

[Cross Reference]

You need to preach what True Believers are practicing! The problem
is, you don't have a clue what they're practicing!

Fool __you need Jesus Christ in a big way. You better start taking stock of whatever 'think system' it is you have embraced to have confidence in and how it isn't going to get where you 'think' you are going..

 

[Cruciform]

All you have done, yet again, is answer your own strawman. I asked for a list of traditions Paul was refering to.

Your request itself flows from a basic ignorance of Catholic belief and teaching on your part, to which I have responded in Posts #66 and #87 above. Making such a demand merely serves to place that ignorance on public display (again).



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[CabinetMaker]

Your request itself flows from a basic ignorance of Catholic belief and teaching on your part, to which I have responded in Posts #66 and #87 above. Making such a demand merely serves to place that ignorance on public display (again).



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

The fact that you cannot directly, clearly and simply answer me question is what us clearly on public display. The fact the Paul could not possibly have taught a tradition that was not introduced until a thousand years after he died is clearly on public display here.

 

[Cruciform]

I am freed from Rome's false mandates and doctrines so I can see Rome's teachings for what they are: man made traditions that nullify the Gospel of Christ. I can represent the teachings for what they are instead of what you wish them to be.

CM's SYLLOGISM:

• Claim to fully and accurately comprehend Catholic beliefs and teachings
• Proceed to then badly distort and misrepresent Catholic beliefs and teachings repeatedly in your posted statements
• Have knowledgeable and informed Catholics detail and demonstrate the transparent ignorance and errors in your posted statements
• Assert that your distortions and misrepresentations are supposedly what Catholics "really" believe and teach
• Stick to your fabricated scenario at all costs, no matter how categorically refuted or hopelessly erroneous it might be
• Repeat ad infinitum

Gaudium de veritate,


Cruciform
+T+

 

[Cruciform]

The fact that you cannot directly, clearly and simply answer me question is what us clearly on public display. The fact the Paul could not possibly have taught a tradition that was not introduced until a thousand years after he died is clearly on public display here.

Already answered---and corrected---in Posts #66, #87, and #94 above.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Cruciform's standard MO. When asked a question he cannot answer, attack the person who asks the question in the hopes that he can deflect attention from the fact that he has no ability to a cut ally address the question that was actually asked.

CM's SYLLOGISM:

• Claim to fully and accurately comprehend Catholic beliefs and teachings
• Proceed to then badly distort and misrepresent Catholic beliefs and teachings repeatedly in your posted statements
• Have knowledgeable and informed Catholics detail and demonstrate the transparent ignorance and errors in your posted statements
• Assert that your distortions and misrepresentations are supposedly what Catholics "really" believe and teach
• Stick to your fabricated scenario at all costs, no matter how categorically refuted or hopelessly erroneous they might be
• Repeat ad infinitum

Gaudium de veritate,


Cruciform
+T+

 

[Cruciform]

Cruciform's standard MO. When asked a question he cannot answer, attack the person who asks the question in the hopes that he can deflect attention from the fact that he has no ability to a cut ally address the question that was actually asked.

You can go ahead and just apply all that to yourself---concerning the very post to which I'm responding.

Back to Posts #66, #87, and #94.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[CabinetMaker]

For any that are interested, Cruciform asserts that he has answered a question I asked in at least three different posts.

Already answered---and corrected---in Posts #66, #87, and #94 above.

Let's see what you think. Here is the question I originally asked.

Post the list of oral traditions to which Paul was referring. Make sure you include your documentation proving that they are indeed the traditions Paul was speaking of. If you can post that, then Totten is refuted. If you can't post it then Totten is correct.

Here are the "answers" Cruciform has provided. First, post 66.

TRANSLATION: "That's not what my chosen recently-invented man-made non-Catholic sect teaches, and I'm not allowed to think or believe otherwise!"

IN SHORT: "I don't like that!" :madmad:​

Post #62 stands exactly as posted.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Here is post 87.

• Not even close. First, the doctrine of indulgences is entirely biblical and consistent with the theological teaching of Christ's one historic Church from the beginning (see this, this, this, this, and this).
• Second, your opinion fails to account for the reality of doctrinal development in the Church, a fact which Christ's one historic Church has recognized and taught from the very beginning (see this, this, and this).
• Third, you falsely assume that Scripture was composed in the form of a handbook of systematic theology or a compendium of organized, fully-formed doctrines, an error that even beginning Bible students know better than to make. Unfortunately, such an approach to Scripture is not only embarrassingly naive, but simply fails to take the Bible for what it is.
• Therefore, your assumptions and claims on this and other points simply fall flat.

Not only did I not ignore it, but I have now directly answered it twice, both here and in Post #66 above. Your comments proceed from a basic and (willingly) persistent ignorance of Catholic belief and teaching. My previous statements stand exactly as posted.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

And here is post 94.

CM's SYLLOGISM:

• Claim to fully and accurately comprehend Catholic beliefs and teachings
• Proceed to then badly distort and misrepresent Catholic beliefs and teachings repeatedly in your posted statements
• Have knowledgeable and informed Catholics detail and demonstrate the transparent ignorance and errors in your posted statements
• Assert that your distortions and misrepresentations are supposedly what Catholics "really" believe and teach
• Stick to your fabricated scenario at all costs, no matter how categorically refuted or hopelessly erroneous it might be
• Repeat ad infinitum

Gaudium de veritate,


Cruciform
+T+

Did Cruciform answer the question I asked?

 

[Cruciform]

For any that are interested, Cruciform asserts that he has answered a question I asked in at least three different posts.

You asked no question, but merely demanded information (you can't even manage to accurately represent this single point of the discussion!). I did indeed answer that demand in Posts #66, #87, and #94 above.

 

[Cross Reference]

Cruciform's standard MO. When asked a question he cannot answer, attack the person who asks the question in the hopes that he can deflect attention from the fact that he has no ability to a cut ally address the question that was actually asked.

When are you going to recognize you are dealing with a computer that is full of a virus, a "worm" that eats away at its ability to compute common sense and programed to reply only a certain way? Notice, its replies never change making it all to be a lost cause except maybe for one to hone his skills on how to deal with stupidity..