the lumberjack Posted May 19, 2004 Share Posted May 19, 2004 jewish man made tradition or the Mosaic Jewish law? they are two different things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the lumberjack Posted May 19, 2004 Share Posted May 19, 2004 dust, I don't know if I can take the analogy of a medical book and compare it with the Bible...its like comparing apples and cyborgs...at least to me. but... in reference to the first post, Paul (or someone else) went and verbally gave them the gospel, right? right THEN, when word got to Paul (or the other Apostles) that a church they had helped found had started to err, they had to write to them because they were busy and/or could not get to them as fast as a letter could...right? right. so, yes, I agree that we need someone to instruct us in the learning of the Bible...but we have all the reproof for learning, wisdom and knowledge located in its pages once we have that instruction. this is not for personal private interpretation...this is what the early fledgling churches did, and this is why the apostles felt compelled to write and correct them...and revisit them if possible/necessary. or is this not the reason that Paul and the other authors of the epistles wrote to the churches? hope you understand what I'm saying. God bless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dUSt Posted May 19, 2004 Share Posted May 19, 2004 [quote name='the lumberjack' date='May 19 2004, 02:31 PM'] this is not for personal private interpretation...this is what the early fledgling churches did, and this is why the apostles felt compelled to write and correct them...and revisit them if possible/necessary. or is this not the reason that Paul and the other authors of the epistles wrote to the churches? hope you understand what I'm saying. [/quote] I understand. But the difference between you and me is you believe that the Apostolic authority Christ gave to His apostles ended with their deaths. I don't. I base this on the fact that the Bible wasn't compiled for at least 300 years later, and certain books were left out--certain books were included. If the Apostolic authority Christ gave to His church didn't extend past the Apostles death, then we would have no basis for accepting the table of contents of the Bible as inspired. Secondly, I base this on the fact that there is Biblical evidence that successors [b]were[/b] chosen for the apostles--the Biblical example being a successor chosen for Judas. Correct me if I misinterpreted your beliefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quietfire Posted May 19, 2004 Share Posted May 19, 2004 (edited) Maybe I understand what you are saying Lumber, then again, maybe not. But then explain that if we have all the reproof then why.. do some still argue that we should observe Jewish dietary customs? do some still argue that we should observe Saturday Sabbath? do some argue that Christ is not divine? do some argue that Christ is or is not present in the Eucharist.? do some still argue that after 2000 years, the Catholic Church is wrong? do some still argue that revelation is in reference to letters written to the 7 churches in Asia Minor, and not some catastrophic ending of Earth? I could go on and on, and on. How many denominations? How many since the Reformation? How could everyone be right? and wrong? If someone has been debating and defending the SAME thing for 2000 years, then why is it that some STILL wish to argue it. These are all essentially the same arguements over and over and over again. And then on top of that, when something 'new' is shown, there are arguements over that... "oh, its something that the Church 'added'." Aw...Come on!!!! Every time I read the same book, I find something new in it...but its the same book. Every time I watch the same movie, I find something new in it...but its the same movie Every time I go for a drive on the same route, I discover something new...but its the same route. It is inbedded within us. We see things gradually because we grow gradually. Sometimes though, we dont see it because deep down we dont wish to grow. Whether it be fear, stubborness, idleness, anger, denial. If we didnt grow gradually, then it would all be too much to take in. Sometimes the information needs to come to us slowly. Peace. And sometimes I believe that after all these millenia, we will never grow up. Edited May 19, 2004 by Quietfire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Katholikos Posted May 19, 2004 Author Share Posted May 19, 2004 [quote name='Katholikos' date='May 18 2004, 06:40 PM']Lumberjack wrote on another thread, [i]How is Mary Related to My Salvation:[/i] [b]"the bible is the basis for all doctrine... the teachings of Christ and the apostles."[/b] I've started this thread to ask him: Please provide the proof(s) [u]from the Bible[/u] for your statement that the "Bible is the source of all doctrine . . . the teachings of Christ and the apostles. . ." And, since the Bible is a collection of writings and not a continuous, complete-in-itself document, please provide the God-given, inspired list of the table of contents. Thanks. Comments, anyone? JMJ Likos[/quote] Lumberjack, this was a two-part question based on your own statement: 1. Please provide the proofs [u]from the Bible[/u] that the Bible is the basis of all doctrine. (It has been established, from the Bible itself, that the New Testament does not contain the entire teaching of Christ and the apostles.) 2. Please provide the God-given list of the table of contents upon which you rely in order to be certain that the collection of separate writings contained in your "Bible' -- [i]ta Biblia[/i] -- is complete. You know, of course, that when a Catholic and a Protestant say "Bible," they're not referring to the same book! Ours has 73 writings; yours has only 66. Which of these Bibles is "the basis of all doctrine"? Please answer. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the lumberjack Posted May 19, 2004 Share Posted May 19, 2004 [quote]It is inbedded within us. We see things gradually because we grow gradually. Sometimes though, we dont see it because deep down we dont wish to grow. Whether it be fear, stubborness, idleness, anger, denial. If we didnt grow gradually, then it would all be too much to take in. Sometimes the information needs to come to us slowly. Peace. And sometimes I believe that after all these millenia, we will never grow up.[/quote] amen quietfire... and thru all this...I do believe we are all learning from one another...at least I hope we are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Katholikos Posted May 19, 2004 Author Share Posted May 19, 2004 [quote name='the lumberjack' date='May 19 2004, 12:04 PM']dust, with respect to the Bible, I have no respect towards people who make it less than what it is... [/quote] Uh, excuse me, but what about Martin Luther, whose cut version of the Bible you and all Protestants use, who "made the Bible less than what it is"????? Luther shucked Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation in addition to Judith, Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Tobit, and Ecclesiasticus (Sirach). If ML's followers hadn't restored the NT books to their rightful place, you'd be using a Bible with only 23 NT writings out of the original 27, in addition to having only 39 out of the original 46 OT writings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Bobola Posted May 20, 2004 Share Posted May 20, 2004 "And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven." - Matthew 16:18-19 The Bible is revelation, truths given from God to man. But there is also Tradition in the Church. This tradition has been handed down from Biblical times. But these truths are not necessarilly in the Bible, i.e. the evil of abortion, yet they still remain truths. But by Church Tradition we can know and understand truth in context with the Bible. The above quote is obviously the establishing of the primacy of the chair of Peter. But it does not say anything about the duties of the Pope, yet we understand that those duties are still his. They exist, but are not in the Bible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P3chrmd Posted May 20, 2004 Share Posted May 20, 2004 [quote]dust, with respect to the Bible, I have no respect towards people who make it less than what it is...[/quote] It's also very important to realize what the bible isn't...and that is GOD...so lets not treat it like that! Alot of protestants have this big problem...when arguing about Sola Scriptura...they get on this craze about how holy the bible is...and it is...I will NEVER argue that fact...the bible is the sweet word of Our Lord!!! But when you begin to raise the bible above even God Himself...then we have a problem...and like it or not...most protestants are like that (putting the bible before even God...and they don't even realize they are doing it). And YES I know this for a fact...I was a Southern Baptist for 16 yrs! The bible is the awsome work of God and is def. a book to teach us...a book to follow and study and read daily...but it is not the only source of truth from God! Find me ONE VERSE IN THE BIBLE that says that the bible is the only source of truth...and I will believe you! And also (this is sorta off topic) for all those protestants who deny the immaculate conception and assumption of Our Lady....you can't deny it...because the bible is silent about it! And if you are a "Bible Only" Christian then you can't deny it...because the bible dosen't say it didn't happen...just as you can't prove it...because the bible dosen't specifically say that they did happen (even though there are lots of implications) SOLA SCRIPTURA...IS EVIL..plain and simple...see what it has cause...all these denominations...its NUTS! Do we really think that makes God happy!!! NO!!!! But...ANYWAYS...lol Yes the bible is the amazing word of God!!!! And should be tought and followed...but it is not God himself! Lets not make it THAT important! In Christ through Mary, Brandon V. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted May 20, 2004 Share Posted May 20, 2004 [quote name='P3chrmd' date='May 20 2004, 02:42 AM'] It's also very important to realize what the bible isn't...and that is GOD...so lets not treat it like that! Alot of protestants have this big problem...when arguing about Sola Scriptura...they get on this craze about how holy the bible is...and it is...I will NEVER argue that fact...the bible is the sweet word of Our Lord!!! But when you begin to raise the bible above even God Himself...then we have a problem...and like it or not...most protestants are like that (putting the bible before even God...and they don't even realize they are doing it). And YES I know this for a fact...I was a Southern Baptist for 16 yrs! The bible is the awsome work of God and is def. a book to teach us...a book to follow and study and read daily...but it is not the only source of truth from God! Find me ONE VERSE IN THE BIBLE that says that the bible is the only source of truth...and I will believe you! And also (this is sorta off topic) for all those protestants who deny the immaculate conception and assumption of Our Lady....you can't deny it...because the bible is silent about it! And if you are a "Bible Only" Christian then you can't deny it...because the bible dosen't say it didn't happen...just as you can't prove it...because the bible dosen't specifically say that they did happen (even though there are lots of implications) SOLA SCRIPTURA...IS EVIL..plain and simple...see what it has cause...all these denominations...its NUTS! Do we really think that makes God happy!!! NO!!!! But...ANYWAYS...lol Yes the bible is the amazing word of God!!!! And should be tought and followed...but it is not God himself! Lets not make it THAT important! In Christ through Mary, Brandon V. [/quote] Welcome to the phorum and to the Church, Brandon! I agree with everything you've said except for one thing ... the Bible isn't really silent on the Immaculate Conception of Our Lady. Read the Annunciation account in the Gospel of Luke, where the Archangel Gabriel describes her as "full of grace." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted May 20, 2004 Share Posted May 20, 2004 [b]SOLA VERBUM DEI!!![/b] God's Word to humanity consists of more than a hit and run inspiration of books then lack of contact. God's Word consists of God guiding the Church into the fullness of His Church. the definition of VERBUM DEI= WORD OF GOD= JESUS CHRIST= GOD if God can't be put in a box, He can't be put in a book either, therefore Jesus can't be fully contained within a book, The Word of God cannot be fully contained within a book. only the Word of God is necessary, but God has poured fourth His Spirit on the earth, and His Word (Jesus) will be with us until the end of the age revealing all truth to us through The Spirit. It's not a closed book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P3chrmd Posted May 20, 2004 Share Posted May 20, 2004 [quote]I agree with everything you've said except for one thing ... the Bible isn't really silent on the Immaculate Conception of Our Lady. Read the Annunciation account in the Gospel of Luke, where the Archangel Gabriel describes her as "full of grace." [/quote] Hi Dave, Yes...lol...I was thinking about that when I was typing my response...but I figured it would do know good to put it in there...cause it would only be denied..lol...thats why I just simpley stated that there were implications of the immaculate conception and assumption in the bible texts! But yes...I do know what your talking about though at the annunciation!!! oh...and thanks for the warm welcome! In Christ through Mary, Brandon V. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the lumberjack Posted May 20, 2004 Share Posted May 20, 2004 if using the bible as the ultimate authority which one should weigh all perspective doctrine against is considered sola scriptura...then sure, sign me up. and if you're saying that Christ based His church upon satan, then go ahead and assume that, because only 5 verses later does Christ call Simon Peter Satan, and tell him to get behind Him... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mulls Posted May 20, 2004 Share Posted May 20, 2004 [quote name='Aloysius' date='May 20 2004, 12:20 PM'] if God can't be put in a box, He can't be put in a book either, therefore Jesus can't be fully contained within a book, The Word of God cannot be fully contained within a book. [/quote] or a construct of any kind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted May 20, 2004 Share Posted May 20, 2004 proof that when a pope (Peter) speaks up on a matter of doctrine when the rest of the rest of the bishops (Apostles) say nothing it is not revealed by flesh and blood, but by the Father in Heaven, while he is still a human being and susceptable (sp?) to temptations of the devil and sometimes thinking too much like men think and not like God thinks in his actions. Pope John Paul II could be wrong about... say, the war in Iraq (i'm not saying he is or isn't, i'm just making an example of the possibility) but he could not be wrong when he speaks in the name of the Church (the rest of the Apostles) about a matter of faith or morals. It is very clearly illustrated in these verses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now