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

[PhilipJames]

I've read them, or similar. I know what they say. And I have not lied about what the say by taking text out of contex.

Then you know what I said was true! That the Church has always taught that the sacrifice of the New Covenant is the one foretold in Malachi 1:11...

Will you admit that , or do I need to start quoting documents...

Peace!
PJ

 

[CabinetMaker]

Then you know what I said was true! That the Church has always taught that the sacrifice of the New Covenant is the one foretold in Malachi 1:11...

Will you admit that , or do I need to start quoting documents...

Peace!
PJ

Yes, I would agree that Malachi is refering to Jusus. But even a broken clock is right twice a day, but it's still broken. The RCC gets some things right and a great many more wrong.

 

[serpentdove]

Using very large text is inappropriate...

But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you linger: than what we have preached to you, oly: let him be accursed (Ga 1:8). :burnlib:

So he's accursed in capital letters. :idunno: He's lust her since he met her (Re 19:2). :guitar: He's lust her since he met her (Re 19:2).

See:

Roman Catholicism

 

[PhilipJames]

Yes, I would agree that Malachi is refering to Jusus. .

Good! That is a start. So you agree that the sacrifice of the New Covenant is Jesus...

Malachi 1:11 For from the rising of the sun, even to its setting, my name is great among the nations; And everywhere they bring sacrifice to my name, and a pure offering; For great is my name among the nations, says the LORD of hosts.

If you agree that Jesus is the 'pure offering' spoken of here, how then do 'the nations' bring that sacrifice, 'from the rising of the sun...' if not by the offering of the table of the Lord?

Peace!
PJ

 

[musterion]

Hmm...

Nah. Not idolatry at all.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Good! That is a start. So you agree that the sacrifice of the New Covenant is Jesus...

Malachi 1:11 For from the rising of the sun, even to its setting, my name is great among the nations; And everywhere they bring sacrifice to my name, and a pure offering; For great is my name among the nations, says the LORD of hosts.

If you agree that Jesus is the 'pure offering' spoken of here, how then do 'the nations' bring that sacrifice, 'from the rising of the sun...' if not by the offering of the table of the Lord?

Peace!
PJ

The nations of the Old Covenant brought their sacrifices. There are no nations under the New Covenant, only the Body of Christ.

 

[Cruciform]

You mean the reply that you edited to make it look like I said something I did not?

Either post your proof for this claim, or admit your Straw Man Fallacy.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Either post your proof for this claim, or admit your Straw Man Fallacy.

I already did post my proof. Just a few posts above. Do you have the integrity go back and actually read it this time?

 

[Cruciform]

I already did post my proof. Just a few posts above.

Cite the post number in which you provide this supposed proof.

 

[Cruciform]

Hmm... Nah. Not idolatry at all.

No, it isn't, a fact that has already been outlined here. Try again.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Cite the post number in which you provide this supposed proof.

So much for Catholic integrity. My original post is #113 and your edited version if what I posted is #114. Of course, this was already pointed out to you post #115.

 

[Cruciform]

My original post is #113 and your edited version if what I posted is #114. Of course, this was already pointed out to you post #115.

QUESTION: Exactly how would including your second sentence from Post #113 in any way change the meaning of your first sentence in post #113?

 

[CabinetMaker]

QUESTION: Exactly how would including your second sentence from Post #113 in any way change the meaning of your first sentence in post #113?

The second sentence supports the first sentence by offering independent corroboration that your responses in no way answer the question that was asked.

 

[Cruciform]

The second sentence supports the first sentence by offering independent corroboration that your responses in no way answer the question that was asked.

The fact that some TOL posters happen to agree with your anti-Catholic claims means exactly nothing, and certainly does not support your assertion that I edited your post "to make it look like [you] said something [you] did not." The fact is that your first sentence in Post #113 stands by itself as either true or false, and whether or not others agree with the claim has absolutely nothing to do with it. Therefore, my statement in Post #114 stands as given.

Now, do you have an actual argument to offer, or do you merely plan to continue trolling on this thread?



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[CabinetMaker]

The fact that some TOL posters happen to agree with your anti-Catholic claims means exactly nothing, and certainly does not support your assertion that I edited your post "to make it look like [you] said something [you] did not." The fact is that your first sentence in Post #113 stands by itself as either true or false, and whether or not others agree with the claim has absolutely nothing to do with it. Therefore, my statement in Post #114 stands as given.

Now, do you have an actual argument to offer, or do you merely plan to continue trolling on this thread?



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

My actual argument is that you lied by implying I acknowledged that I said you answered my question. I did not say, nor imply that you answered my question. You responded several times but, as others noted, you didn't answer my questions.

If you can point to the post where you said something like, "The traditions taught by the Apostle Paul are:" then I will retract what I said and publicly apologize for calling you a liar. If you cannot point to such a post, well, then, my point stands.

The ball is in your court.

 

[Cruciform]

If you can point to the post where you said something like, "The traditions taught by the Apostle Paul are:" then I will retract what I said and publicly apologize for calling you a liar.

I stated just that in Posts #45, #59, and #62. Together, they decisively answer your request. Awaiting your retraction and apology.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[CabinetMaker]

I stated just that in Posts #45, #59, and #62. Together, they decisively answer your request. Awaiting your retraction and apology.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Well then, lets test it out ans see if it is true. Once again, the original question that I 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.

First, post 45:

Paul is referring to any and all doctrines and practices taught by the apostles and their ordained successors (the bishops) that have come down to us either by word of mouth (Tradition) or by letter (Scripture) [2 Thess. 2:15]. Essentially, Tradition consists of everything formally believed and taught by the Catholic Church over the past two millennia.


Yet another Non Sequitur Fallacy by CM.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

This is your first attempted answer but it is not an answer, it is an unsupported assertion. We note that Paul said, "..the traditions you have been taught.." Past tense. Paul was not referring to any traditions that would come after him because, shocking as this may sound, things that came after Pauls death could not possibly have been traditions before Paul died.

So, post 59:

It would be extremely long (again, see Post #45). A good summary exists in the content of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. You can start there.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

This is just a reference back to post 45 which has already been proven a logical fallacy so linking to it again is meaningless. You did add a little note about the Catechism but failed to post any supporting lists found in the Catechism as there are none.

And finally, post #62:

There's your fundamental error. In fact, the Traditions spoken of by Paul include all that has been, is now, and will be taught by the apostles and their ordained successors, the bishops (Ac. 16:4). It involves everything formally taught by the Magisterium of Christ's one historic Church for the past two millennia---not merely during the brief Apostolic Era. Your assumption here simply fails to comport with the teachings of the apostles themselves. Thus, both Totten and yourself are in error on this point, and my previous statements stand exactly as posted.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

So you once again open with an unsupported assertion that Paul was including traditions that did not exist. The very definition of the word tradition precludes Paul from doing this as if it did not exist when Paul was alive, he could not teach it as tradition. Paul was certainly smart enough to know that you don't say that anything that comes after me will always be acceptable. Heck, he took Peter to task for Peter's failures to take the Gospel to the Gentiles. The fundamental error of your statement remains rooted in Catholic error coupled with arrogance.

So, once again, what were the specific traditions Paul was referring to when spoke of holding to traditions? This is not a trivial point. If we don't know what traditions Paul was referring to we have no way to be sure that the traditions that have been added to Christianity over the centuries are acceptable or not.

 

[PhilipJames]

Hello CM,

The nations of the Old Covenant brought their sacrifices. There are no nations under the New Covenant, only the Body of Christ.

You're going to have to be a little more clear here..

Malachi 1:11

For from the rising of the sun, even to its setting, my name is great among the nations; And everywhere they bring sacrifice to my name, and a pure offering; For great is my name among the nations, says the LORD of hosts.

You have already agreed that the 'pure offering' is Jesus. (is there any other possibility? no )

So then, who are 'the nations' ? How do they 'bring sacrifice to His name, how do they 'offer Jesus'.

Can it be anything other than the Table of the Lord?
If you think so, please demonstrate what else, offered 'from the rising of the sun...' makes 'the Lord of hosts' name great among the nations.....

Peace!
PJ

 

[Cruciform]

This is your first attempted answer but it is not an answer, it is an unsupported assertion.

Hardly "unsupported," given that it has been the authoritative teaching---grounded in Divine Revelation (Scripture and Tradition)---of Christ's one historic Catholic Church from the very beginning. Try again.

We note that Paul said, "..the traditions you have been taught.." Past tense.

Yes, and inherent in those Traditions were the apostolic teachings regarding, for example, the authority of the Church, apostolic succession, Tradition as God's word, and the development of Christian doctrine.

This is just a reference back to post 45 which has already been proven a logical fallacy...

Not so far (see above). Try again.

You did add a little note about the Catechism but failed to post any supporting lists found in the Catechism as there are none.

Consider the Catechism itself just such a list.

So you once again open with an unsupported assertion that Paul was including traditions that did not exist.

"...did not exist" in the form that they would eventually take, anyway. In any case, you've already been answered above. Again, one must account for the realities of apostolic succession and doctrinal development in Christ's one historic Church (see above).

Heck, he took Peter to task for Peter's failures to take the Gospel to the Gentiles.

Chapter-and-verse, please---and don't bother quoting Gal. 2:11, since your glaring misinterpretation of the text has already been noted publicly on this forum. No need to embarrass yourself further. You must, then, have another passage in mind...?

The fundamental error of your statement remains rooted in Catholic error coupled with arrogance.

The fundamental error of your statement remains rooted in anti-Catholic error coupled with arrogance.

Already addressed here. Try again.



Gaudium de veritate,

Crucuiform
+T+

 

[Desert Reign]

Cruciform, like the RCC, as a system, in general, would rather skirt the issue than deal with answering questions.

Your request was valid.

Since C and the RCC makes such claims, it is reasonable and logical for them to show line by line and verse by verse why such claims are valid

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.