Who Said We Have To Provide

[Aloysius]

and if we only belive the old testament, then Jesus might not have said that.. and it keeps goin in circles

B)

[skuba steve]

haha... like a schoolyard...

i actually have other things in my life than this... so i haven't had time for this...

but here i am

2Ti 3:15 and you remember that ever since you were a child, you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

According to Paul... The scriptures are able to provide us with the wisdom that leads to salvation. IF THIS IS TRUE.... AND YOUR BIBLE SAYS SO... WHY DO YOU NEED ANYTHING ELSE... honestly? What more do you need than the stuff that leads to salvation???

If we don't need the bible how do we maintain the integrity of the church...

it's the inspired word of God.. God is the same yesterday, today and forever... see that's from the scriptures... so i know it's true... i dunno if you can get some other kinda of meaing out of that.... it could be a metaphor to prove the doctrine of your church....

If you just believe everything you are told you're an idiot... you need to weigh everything up against the word of God or else we come to a situation where the leaders of the church can do whatever they want and you follow them blindly.... and fall into a ditch... that's also something from scripture

I have faith that the bible is from God...that's something i can't prove... that's why it's called faith.

And don't tell me that your priests are holy enough to make all the descisions for you because last time i looked in the paper, they weren't commending priests all that much. Unless you can manipulate the bible or just make up some doctrine to tell me that child abuse is a good deed... you must be pretty mad at me now...

i know that this is only a small percentage of priests.... but it proves that they aren't superhuman, they can be ruled by the evil of this world like you and i and they all have the capacity to be niave or to tell lies like you andme. you need to have something to reveal the integrity of their teachings and make sure they are in line with the word of God...

cool.

[VanHooty]

2 Timothy 3:14-17 reads as follows (RSV)

14: But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it 15: and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16: All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17: that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

This is all well and good. However, we must look at this passage carefully. Paul urges Timothy to continue in what he believes because of *who* he has learned it from. Furthermore, verses 16 and 17 do not say that the Bible is *everything* a person needs. It says that the Old Testament writings Timothy was familiar with are very useful in making a person complete.

I just wanted to respond to that bit. I'll leave other people to get the rest. :D

Edited September 1, 2003 by VanHooty

[Dave]

2Ti 3:15 and you remember that ever since you were a child, you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

According to Paul... The scriptures are able to provide us with the wisdom that leads to salvation. IF THIS IS TRUE.... AND YOUR BIBLE SAYS SO... WHY DO YOU NEED ANYTHING ELSE... honestly? What more do you need than the stuff that leads to salvation???

If we don't need the bible how do we maintain the integrity of the church...

it's the inspired word of God.. God is the same yesterday, today and forever... see that's from the scriptures... so i know it's true... i dunno if you can get some other kinda of meaing out of that.... it could be a metaphor to prove the doctrine of your church....

But nowhere does the Bible say the scriptures are SUFFICIENT. There's also the need for Sacred Tradition. Consider these passages (which I believe have been posted elsewhere):

I. Scripture Alone Disproves "Scripture Alone"

Gen. to Rev. - Scripture never says that Scripture is the sole and exclusive authority for God's Word. Scripture also mandates tradition. This fact alone disproves sola scriptura.

Matt. 28:19; Mark 16:15 - those that preached the Gospel to all creation but did not write the Gospel were not less obedient to Jesus, or their teachings less important.

Matt. 28:20 - "observe ALL I have commanded," but, as we see in John 20:30; 21:25, not ALL Jesus taught is in Scripture. So there must be things outside of Scripture that we must observe. This disproves "Bible alone" theology.

Mark 16:15 - Jesus commands the apostles to "preach," not write, and only three apostles wrote. The others who did not write were not less faithful to Jesus, because Jesus gave them no directive to write. There is no evidence in the Bible or elsewhere that Jesus intended the Bible to be sole authority of the Christian faith.

Luke 1:1-4 - Luke acknowledges that the faithful have already received the teachings of Christ, and is writing his Gospel only so that they "realize the certainty of the teachings you have received." Luke writes to verify the oral tradition they already received.

John 20:30; 21:25 - Jesus did many other things not written in the Scriptures. These have been preserved through oral apostolic tradition and they are equally a part of the Deposit of Faith.

Acts 8:30-31; Heb. 5:12 - these verses show that we need help in interpreting the Scriptures. We cannot interpret them infallibly on our own. We need divinely appointed leadership within the Church to teach us.

1 Cor. 5:9-11 - this verse shows that a prior letter written to Corinth is equally authoritative but not part of the New Testament canon. Paul is appealing to a source outside of Scripture to teach the Corinthians. This disproves Scripture alone.

1 Cor. 11:2 - Paul commends the faithful to obey apostolic tradition, and not Scripture alone.

Phil. 4:9 - Paul says that what you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, do. There is nothing ever about obeying Scripture alone.

Col. 4:16 - this verse shows that a prior letter written to Laodicea is equally authoritative but not part of the New Testament canon. Paul once again appeals to a source outside of the Bible to teach about the Word of God.

1 Thess. 3:10 - Paul wants to see the Thessalonians face to face and supply what is lacking. His letter is not enough.

2 Thess. 2:14 - Paul says that God has called us "through our Gospel." What is the fullness of the Gospel?

2 Thess. 2:15 - the fullness of the Gospel is the apostolic tradition which includes either teaching by word of mouth or by letter. Scripture does not say "letter alone." The Catholic Church has the fullness of the Christian faith through its rich traditions of Scripture, oral tradition and teaching authority (or Magisterium).

2 Thess 3:6 - Paul instructs us to obey apostolic tradition. There is no instruction in the Scriptures about obeying the Bible alone (the word "Bible" is not even in the Bible).

1 Tim. 3:14-15 - Paul prefers to speak and not write, and is writing only in the event that he is delayed and cannot be with Timothy.

2 Tim. 2:2 - Paul says apostolic tradition is passed on to future generations, but he says nothing about all apostolic traditions being eventually committed to the Bible.

2 Tim. 3:14 - continue in what you have learned and believed knowing from whom you learned it. Again, this refers to tradition which is found outside of the Bible.

James 4:5 - James also appeals to Scripture outside of the Old Testament canon ("He yearns jealously over the spirit which He has made...")

2 Peter 1:20 - interpreting Scripture is not a matter of one's own private interpretation. Therefore, it must be a matter of "public" interpretation of the Church. The Divine Word needs a Divine Interpreter. Private judgment leads to divisions, and this is why there are 30,000 different Protestant denominations.

2 Peter 3:15-16 - Peter says Paul's letters are inspired, but not all his letters are in the New Testament canon. See, for example, 1 Cor. 5:9-10; Col. 4:16. Also, Peter's use of the word "ignorant" means unschooled, which presupposes the requirement of oral apostolic instruction that comes from the Church.

2 Peter 3:16 - the Scriptures are difficult to understand and can be distorted by the ignorant to their destruction. God did not guarantee the Holy Spirit would lead each of us to infallibly interpret the Scriptures. But this is what Protestants must argue in order to support their doctrine of sola scriptura. History and countless divisions in Protestantism disprove it.

1 John 4:1 - again, God instructs us to test all things, test all spirits. Notwithstanding what many Protestants argue, God's Word is not always obvious.

1 Sam. 3:1-9 - for example, the Lord speaks to Samuel, but Samuel doesn't recognize it is God. The Word of God is not self-attesting.

1 Kings 13:1-32 - in this story, we see that a man can't discern between God's word (the commandment "don't eat") and a prophet's erroneous word (that God had rescinded his commandment "don't eat"). The words of the Bible, in spite of what many Protestants must argue, are not always clear and understandable. This is why there are 30,000 different Protestant churches and one Holy Catholic Church.

Gen. to Rev. - Protestants must admit that knowing what books belong in the Bible is necessary for our salvation. However, because the Bible has no "inspired contents page," you must look outside the Bible to see how its books were selected. This destroys the sola scriptura theory. The canon of Scripture is a Revelation from God which is necessary for our salvation, and which comes from outside the Bible. Instead, this Revelation was given to the Catholic Church, the pinnacle and foundation of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15).

II. "All Scripture is Inspired"- 2 Tim. 3:16-17

2 Tim. 3:14 - Protestants usually use 2 Tim. 3:16-17 to prove that the Bible is the sole authority of God's word. But examining these texts disproves their claim. Here, Paul appeals to apostolic tradition right before the Protestants' often quoted verse 2 Tim. 3:16-17. Thus, there is an appeal to tradition before there is an appeal to the Scriptures, and Protestants generally ignnore this fact.

2 Tim. 3:15 - Paul then appeals to the sacred writings of Scripture referring to the Old Testament Scriptures with which Timothy was raised (not the New Testament which was not even compiled at the time of Paul's teaching). This verse also proves that one can come to faith in Jesus Christ without the New Testament.

2 Tim. 3:16 - this verse says that Scripture is "profitable" for every good work, but not exclusive. The word "profitable" is "ophelimos" in Greek. "Ophelimos" only means useful, which underscores that Scripture is not mandatory or exclusive. Protestants unbiblically argue that profitable means exclusive.

2 Tim. 3:16 - further, the verse "all Scripture" uses the words "pasa graphe" which actually means every (not all) Scripture. This means every passage of Scripture is useful. Thus, the erroneous Protestant reading of "pasa graphe" would mean every single passage of Scripture is exclusive. This would mean Christians could not only use "sola Matthew," or "sola Mark," but could rely on one single verse from a Gospel as the exclusive authority of God's word. This, of course, is not true. Also, "pasa graphe" cannot mean "all of Scripture" because there was no New Testament canon to which Paul could have been referring, unless Protestants argue that the New Testament is not being included by Paul.

2 Tim. 3:16 - also, these inspired Old Testament Scriptures Paul is referring to included the deuterocanonical books which the Protestants removed from the Bible 1,500 years later.

2 Tim. 3:17 - Paul's reference to the "man of God" who may be complete refers to a clergyman, not a layman. It is an instruction to a bishop of the Church. So, although Protestants use it to prove their case, the passage is not even relevant to most of the faithful.

2 Tim. 3:17 - further, Paul's use of the word "complete" for every good work is "artios" which simply means the clergy is "suitable" or "fit." Also, artios does not describe the Scriptures, it describes the clergyman. So, Protestants cannot use this verse to argue the Scriptures are complete.

James 1:4 - steadfastness also makes a man "perfect (teleioi) and complete (holoklepoi), lacking nothing." This verse is important because "teleioi"and "holoklepoi" are much stronger words than "artios," but Protestants do not argue that steadfastness is all one needs to be a Christian.

Titus 3:8 - good deeds are also "profitable" to men. For Protestants especially, profitable cannot mean "exclusive" here.

2 Tim 2:21- purity is also profitable for "any good work" ("pan ergon agathon"). This wording is the same as 2 Tim. 3:17, which shows that the Scriptures are not exclusive, and that other things (good deeds and purity) are also profitable to men.

Col. 4:12 - prayer also makes men "fully assured." No where does Scripture say the Christian faith is based solely on a book.

2 Tim. 3:16-17 - Finally, if these verses really mean that Paul was teaching sola scriptura, then why in 1 Thess. 2:13 does Paul teach that he is giving Revelation from God orally? Either Paul is contradicting his own teaching on sola scriptura, or Paul was not teaching sola scriptura in 2 Tim. 3:16-17.

III. Other Passages used to Support "Sola Scriptura"

John 5:39 - some non-Catholics use this verse to prove sola scriptura. But when Jesus said "search the Scriptures," He was rebuking the Jews who did not believe that He was the Messiah. Jesus tells them to search the Scriptures to verify the Messianic prophecies and His oral teaching, and does not say "search the Scriptures alone." Moreover, since the New Testament was not yet written, the passage is not relevant to the Protestant claim of sola scriptura.

John 10:35 - some Protestants also use this verse "Scripture cannot be broken" to somehow prove sola scriptura. But this statement refers to the Old Testament Scriptures and has nothing to do with the exclusivity of Scripture and the New Testament.

John 20:31 - Protestants also use this verse to prove sola scriptura. inDouche, Scripture assists in learning to believe in Jesus, but this passage does not say Scripture is exclusive, or even necessary, to be saved by Jesus.

Acts 17:11-12 - here we see the verse "they searched the Scriptures." This refers to the Bereans who used the Old Testament to confirm the oral teachings about the Messiah. The verses do not say the Bereans searched the Scriptures alone (which is what Protestants are attempting to prove when quoting this passage). Moreover, the Bereans accepted the oral teaching from Paul as God's word before searching the Scriptures, which disproves the Berean's use of sola scriptura.

Acts 17:11-12 - Also, the Bereans, being more "noble" or "fair minded," meant that they were more reasonable and less violent than the Thessalonians in Acts. 17:5-9. Their greater fairmindedness was not because of their use of Scripture, which Paul directed his listeners to do as was his custom (Acts 17:3).

1 Cor. 4:6 - this is one of the most confusing passages in Scripture. Many scholars believe the phrase "don't go above the line" was inserted by a translator as an instruction to someone in the translation process. Others say Paul is quoting a proverb regarding kids learning to write by tracing letters. By saying don't go above line, Paul is instructing them not to be arrogant. But even if the phrase is taken literally, this proves too much because there was no New Testament canon at the time Paul wrote this, and the text says nothing about the Bible being the sole rule and guide of faith.

Rev. 1:11,19 - Non-Catholics sometimes refer to Jesus' commands to John to write as support for the theory that the Bible is the only source of Christian faith. Yes, Jesus commands John to write because John was in exile in Patmos and could not preach the Word (which was Jesus' usual command). Further, such a commandment would be limited to the book that John wrote, the Book of Revelation, and would have nothing to do with the other Scriptures.

Rev. 22:18-19 - some Protestants argue against Catholic tradition by citing this verse, "don't add to the prophecies in this book." But this commandment only refers to the book of Revelation, not the entire Bible which came 300 years later.

Deut 4:2; 12:32 - moreover, God commands the same thing here but this did not preclude Christians from accepting the Old Testament books after Deuteronomy or the New Testament.

And then . . .

I. The Word of God is Transferred Orally

Mark 13:31 - heaven and earth will pass away, but Jesus' Word will not pass away. But Jesus never says anything about His Word being entirely committed to a book. Also, it took 400 years to compile the Bible, and another 1,000 years to invent the printing press. How was the Word of God communicated? Orally, by the bishops of the Church, with the protection of the Holy Spirit.

Mark 16:15 - Jesus commands the apostles to preach the Gospel to every creature. But Jesus did not want this preaching to stop after the apostles died, and yet the Bible was not compiled until four centuries later. The word of God was transferred orally.

Mark 3:14; 16:15 - Jesus commands the apostles to preach (not write) the gospel to the world. Jesus gives no commandment to the apostles to write, and gives them no indication that the oral apostolic word he commanded them to communicate would later die in the fourth century. If Jesus wanted Christianity to be limited to a book (which would be finalized four centuries later), wouldn't He have said a word about it?

Luke 10:16 - He who hears you (not "who reads your writings"), hears me. The oral word passes from Jesus to the apostles to their successors by the gracious gifts of the Holy Spirit. This succession has been preserved in the Holy Catholic Church.

Luke 24:47 - Jesus explains that repentance and forgiveness of sins must be preached (not written) in Christ's name to all nations. For Protestants to argue that the word of God is now limited to a book (subject to thousands of different interpretations) is to not only ignore Scripture, but introduce a radical theory about how God spreads His word which would have been unbelievable to the people at the time of Jesus.

Acts 2:3-4 - the Holy Spirit came to the apostles in the form of "tongues" of fire so that they would "speak" (not just write) the Word.

Acts 15:27 - Judas and Silas, successors to the apostles, were sent to bring God's infallible Word by "word of mouth."

Rom. 10:8 - the Word is near you, on your lips and in your heart, which is the word of faith which is preached (not just written).

Rom 10:17 - faith comes by what is "heard" (not just read) which is the Word that is "preached" (not read). This word comes from the oral tradition of the apostles. Those in countries where the Scriptures are not available can still come to faith in Jesus Christ.

1 Cor. 15:1,11 - faith comes from what is "preached" (not read). For Protestants to argue that oral tradition once existed but exists no longer, they must prove this from Scripture. But no where does Scripture say oral tradition died with the apostles. To the contrary, Scripture says the oral word abides forever.

Gal. 1:11-12 - the Gospel which is "preached" (not read) to me is not a man's Gospel, but the Revelation of Jesus Christ.

Eph. 1:13 - hearing (not reading) the Word of truth is the gospel of our salvation. This is the living word in the Church's living tradition.

Col. 1:5 - of this you have "heard" (not read) before in the word of truth, the Gospel which has come to you.

1 Thess. 2:13 - the Word of God is what you have "heard" (not read). The orally communicated word of God lasts forever, and this word is preserved within the Church by the Holy Spirit.

2 Tim. 1:13 - oral communications are protected by the Spirit. They abide forever. Oral authority does not die with the apostles.

2 Tim 4:2,6-7 - Paul, at the end of his life, charges Timothy to preach (not write) the Word. Oral teaching does not die with Paul.

Titus 1:3 - God's word is manifested "through preaching" (not writing). This "preaching" is the tradition that comes from apostles.

1 Peter 1:25 - the Word of the Lord abides forever and that Word is the good news that was "preached" (not read) to you. Because the Word is preached by the apostles and it lasts forever, it must be preserved by the apostles' successors, or this could not be possible. Also, because the oral word abides forever, oral apostolic tradition could not have died in the fourth century and all been committed to Scripture.

2 Peter 1:12, 15 - Peter says that he will leave a "means to recall these things in mind." But since this was his last canonical epistle, this "means to recall" must therefore be the apostolic tradition and teaching authority of his office that he left behind.

2 John 1:12; 3 John 13 - John prefers to speak and not to write. Throughout history, the Word of God was always transferred orally and Jesus did not change this. To do so would have been a radical departure from the Judaic tradition.

Deut. 31:9-12 - Moses had the law read only every seven years. Was the word of God absent during the seven year interval? Of course not. The Word of God has always been given orally by God's appointed ones, and was never limited to Scripture.

Isaiah 40:8 - the grass withers, the flower fades, but the Word of our God (not necessarily written) will stand forever.

Isaiah 59:21 - Isaiah prophesies the promise of a living voice to hand on the Word of God to generations by mouth, not by a book. This is either a false prophecy, or it has been fulfilled by the Catholic Church.

Joel 1:3 - tell your children of the Word of the Lord, and they tell their children, and their children tell another generation.

Mal. 2:7 - the lips of a priest guard knowledge, and we should seek instruction from his mouth. Protestants want to argue all oral tradition was committed to Scripture? But no where does Scripture say this.

II. Learning through Oral Apostolic Tradition

Matt. 15:3 - Jesus condemns human traditions that void God's word. Some Protestants use this verse to condemn all tradition. But this verse has nothing to do with the tradition we must obey that was handed down to us from the apostles. (Here, the Pharisees, in their human tradition, gave goods to the temple to avoid taking care of their parents, and this voids God's law of honoring one's father and mother.)

Mark 7:9 - this is the same as Matt. 15:3 - there is a distinction between human tradition (that we should reject) and apostolic tradition (that we must accept).

Acts 2:42 - the members obeyed apostolic tradition (doctrine, prayers, and the breaking of bread). Their obedience was not to the Scriptures alone. Tradition (in Gree, "paradosis") means "to hand on" teaching.

Acts 20:7 - this verse gives us a glimpse of Christian worship on Sunday, but changing the Lord's day from Saturday to Sunday is understood primarily from oral apostolic tradition.

John 17:20 - Jesus prays for all who believe in Him through the oral word of the apostles. Jesus protects oral apostolic teaching.

1 Cor. 11:2 - Paul commends the faithful for maintaining the apostolic tradition that they have received. The oral word is preserved and protected by the Spirit.

Phil. 4:9 - Paul says that what you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, do. This refers to learning from his preaching and example, which is apostolic tradition.

2 Thess. 2:15 - Paul commands us to obey oral apostolic tradition. He says stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, either by word of mouth or letter. This verse proves that for apostolic authority, oral and written communications are on par with each other. Protestants must find a verse that voids this commandment to obey oral tradition elsewhere in the Bible, or they are not abiding by the teachings of Scripture.

2 Thess. 2:15 - in fact, it was this apostolic tradition that allowed the Church to select the Bible canon (apostolicity from tradition). The Bible is an apostolic tradition of the Catholic Church. Other examples of apostolic tradition include the teachings on the Blessed Trinity, the hypostatic union (Jesus had a divine and human nature in one person), the filioque (that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son), the assumption of Mary, and knowing that the Gospel of Matthew was written by Matthew.

2 Thess. 3:6 - Paul again commands the faithful to live in accord with the tradition that they received from the apostles.

2 Thess. 3:7 - Paul tells them they already know how to imitate the elders. He is referring them to the tradition they have learned by his oral preaching and example.

1 Tim. 6:20 - guard what has been "entrusted" to you. The word "entrusted" is "paratheke" which means a "deposit." Oral tradition is part of what the Church has always called the Deposit of Faith.

2 Tim. 2:2 - Paul says what you have heard from me entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. This is "tradition," or the handing on of apostolic teaching.

2 Tim. 3:14 - continue in what you have learned and believed knowing from whom you learned it (by oral tradition).

III. Examples of Jesus' and Apostles' Reliance on Oral Tradition

Matt. 2:23 - the prophecy "He shall be a Nazarene" is oral tradition. It is not found in the Old Testament. This demonstrates that the apostles relied upon oral tradition and taught by oral tradition.

Matt 23:2 - Jesus relies on oral tradition of acknowledging Moses' seat of authority (which passed from Moses to Joshua to the Sanhedrin). This is not recorded in the Old Testament.

John 19:26; 20:2; 21:20,24 - knowing that the "beloved disciple" is John is inferred from Scripture, but is also largely oral tradition.

Acts 20:35 - Paul relies on oral tradition of the apostles for this statement ("it is better to give than to receive") of Jesus. It is not recorded in the Gospels.

1 Cor. 7:10 - Paul relies on the oral tradition of the apostles to give the charge of Jesus that a wife should not separate from her husband.

1 Cor. 10:4 - Paul relies on the oral tradition of the rock following Moses. It is not recorded in the Old Testament. See Exodus 17:1-17 and Num. 20:2-13.

Eph 5:14 - Paul relies on oral tradition to quote an early Christian hymn - "awake O sleeper rise from the dead and Christ shall give you light."

Heb. 11:37 - the author of Hebrews relies on oral tradition of the martyrs being sawed in two. This is not recorded in the Old Testament.

Jude 9 - Jude relies on the oral tradition of the Archangel Michael's dispute with satan over Moses' body. This is not found in the Old Testament.

Jude 14-15 - Jude relies on the oral tradition of Enoch's prophecy which is not recorded in the Old Testament.

If you just believe everything you are told you're an idiot... you need to weigh everything up against the word of God or else we come to a situation where the leaders of the church can do whatever they want and you follow them blindly.... and fall into a ditch... that's also something from scripture

I have faith that the bible is from God...that's something i can't prove... that's why it's called faith.

So then we're idiots for believing everything Jesus said? I don't think so!

And don't tell me that your priests are holy enough to make all the descisions for you because last time i looked in the paper, they weren't commending priests all that much. Unless you can manipulate the bible or just make up some doctrine to tell me that child abuse is a good deed... you must be pretty mad at me now...

i know that this is only a small percentage of priests.... but it proves that they aren't superhuman, they can be ruled by the evil of this world like you and i and they all have the capacity to be niave or to tell lies like you andme. you need to have something to reveal the integrity of their teachings and make sure they are in line with the word of God...

Priests don't comprise the Church's teaching authority; the Pope and the bishops in union with him do. And their authority has NOTHING to do with their personal holiness. Heck, the Church has had popes that haven't been the picture of holiness; however, not once did they teach anything false. They can't teach incorrectly because they're protected by the Holy Spirit from doing so, even if they don't follow that teaching in their daily lives.

[mulls]

wow, my eyes hurt

[ironmonk]

I have faith that the bible is from God...that's something i can't prove... that's why it's called faith.

skuba....

Did the bible fall out of the sky?

How do we know which books belong in the bible? Not all of Pauls writings are in there.

"We are compelled to concede to the Papists that they have the Word of God, that we received it from them, and that without them we should have no knowledge of it at all."

~ Martin Luther, Commentary on St. John

God had a organization during the Old Testament times, the Jewish Priesthood, it was the Pillar and Foundation of Truth before Christ... The Jewish Priesthood was guided by God in the Truth that was available to man... The Jewish Priesthood guided by God, determined the Old Testament Canon... After Christ, God did not leave us alone... He left us with a New Church (St. Matt 5:13-15, 16:18-19, 28:18-20, St. John 1:42, 21:15-17, St Luke 10:16)... With New Authority(1 Tim 3:15, St. Matt 18:17, 28:18-20, 2 Tim 3:14-16, 2 Thess 2:15, 2 Tim 2:2, Romans 10:17, Eph 2:20, 3:5, 1 Corin 11:2, 1 Corin 15:3, 11, Acts 8:27-31 ).... Given to them by Christ... built on Peter and the Apostles, One Faith(Eph 4:5).... The Pillar and Foundation of Truth (1 Tim 3:15). This Church built by Christ will never be overcome (St. Matt 16:18-19)... has been with us since 33 AD.... And will be with us until the End of Time(St. Matt 28:20), guided by God in all matters of Truth(Acts 15:27-28). This very Church (Ekklesia) built by Christ, was guided by the Holy Spirit (Acts 9:2, 15:27-28, 22:4; 24:14,22) in giving us the New Testament Canon.

God Bless,

ironmonk

[Norseman82]

What more do you need than the stuff that leads to salvation???

If we don't need the bible how do we maintain the integrity of the church...

First of all, I don't recall anyone here saying we don't need the bible.

Second, in answer to the "what more do you need" question, it is one thing to get saved, it is another to STAY saved. Please see Romans 11;22 and 2 Peter 3:17. Saying that one does not need anything other than the bible and that one can read it on their own leads to faulty private interpretations. Why do you think we have tens of thousands of denominations? Can they ALL be right? I mean, either the Eucharist IS or IS NOT the Body and Blood of Christ. Either there IS or IS NOT a Trinity. Either Jesus IS or IS NOT truly God and truly Man. Either there IS or IS NOT a resurrection.

[ReformationNow]

aside from all that jazz about we produced the Bible (which is all true, just not my point)  i wanna know why WE have to provide defensive Biblical references.

i mean, they're the one makin the accusation, is not the burden of proof on them? why can't i say to a protestant "Provide a Biblical quote that says praying to the saints or Mary is wrong" but He can say "Provide a Biblical quotation that says you can pray to the saints or Mary"

the truth is, there really is no solid Biblical citation that could prove either point.  which is true?  if we go by the Bible alone, then neither is true.  Thus we both can and cannot pray to the saints and Mary.

"the Body of Christ is not seperated by death.  We are all to help one another, and this obligation is in no way dissolved by death."

                      ~Aloysius (me)

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!OR!!!!!!!!!

"Why can't we just go directly to Jesus?"

                ~Other People

are not both logics sound?  do they not both make sense?  so WHICH ONE IS TRUE? 

there is only 1 truth.  If you argue with that, i will not even try to talk 2 u, u are too far off into the 'new age' deepend.

soooo... what is the truth?  only two things I know of are identified as truth.

Jesus is the Way, the TRUTH, and the Light

The Church is the pillar and fire of truth

so is not the Church the pillar of Christ, with authority to decide in cases just as these as it is guided by the Holy Spirit

now i know the non-Catholics are prolly like, yeah, the same Catholic mumbo jumbo we've heard b4.  but really think about it.  Reread this.  Reread it again.  Pray about it and really ask yourself and ask Jesus how you are to determine which is the correct interpretation, which is the correct logic, WHAT IS TRUE?

Pax et Amo Christi!

The burden of proof always lies upon those who make the original claim.

[VanHooty]

First of all, I don't recall anyone here saying we don't need the bible.

Oooh! I'm gonna say that.

We don't need the Bible in order to be Christian. Sort of. Everyone will admit that the Bible is very, very useful. I am not advocating getting rid of it or anything.

But the very first Christians didn't have Bibles. Heck... the New Testament wasn't even completely composed at first. And they are certain just as Christian as you or I.

Throughout the course of history, Bibles have been rare commodities. Until the advent of the printing press, if you had a Bible you were likely in a monestary or a rich noble.

[Aloysius]

STEVE! STEVE! STEVE!

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH~~~~~~~~~~~!!!!!!!!!

did u say we belive our priests are superhuman????? who told u that???

ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh'

i'm allowed 2 disagree with my priest,,, heck there are plenty out there that are caught up in the new age movement

we are to listen to the Pope when he declares something on faith or morals from the chair of St. Peter. Do you remember reading in ure bible where Jesus was condemning what the Pharisees did, but said basically to do as they say not as they do. His reason was that they had taken the chair of Moses, therefore they are to listen to their teachings on faith or morals. Therefore, when someone's on the chair of Peter, we are to listen 2 their teachings on Faith and morals. THe pope is not infallible of his own power. As a private theologan giving advice, you would not have to listen to him. But when the Father in heaven reveals something to a successor to Peter such as "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living GOd" as he did to the first Pope, THAT IS THE ROCK. The statement is the rock, but that statement cannot be separated from Peter. The rock is Peter making such a statement, or in easire terms just say the rock is Peter. Jesus Christ will prevent a pope from teaching error from the chair of peter. THat is why such a statement is infallible, because Jesus wont let it err. THat is part of His promise that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church.

also an infallible statement would come when the entire body of bishops (the magisterium) makes a teaching on faith or morals.

if you don't believe in this infallibility, why do you believe the infallibility of the magisterium that picked the books of the Bible? Jesus Christ would not let them err in picking the books, and they did not.

Pax et Amo Christi!