Bible Alone.. For Catholic's

[metis]

That church leaders' writing are not scripture.

Some of them were as the Apostles and disciples of Christ were very much a part of the early Church.

And the passage in Maccabees isn't about purgatory either...it's about some guy who prayed for his men who died in battle.

In the oldest Christian creed, the "Apostles Creed" passed down from the Apostles, it says that the "communion of saints", which was viewed as a reference that we can pray for each other whether we be alive or dead, thus we talk about the earthly and the heavenly Kingdom of God.

Not for Protestants. We only follow the Bible. Sola scriptura.

And the canon of that Bible was chosen by those in the Church in the 4th century that you badmouth.

 

[sojourner]

True, the Mormons might be right in some of the appendages they add

The Mormon texts represent a departure from church Tradition. The non-canonical writings of church leaders, conversely, continue the church Tradition of writing letters and instructions, which is the preponderance of the canonical Greek texts.

No false distinction. The writers of the New Testament were part of the Church but not part of the RC Church

We are all part of each other. The church is the church. Why make such a distinction?

so for all intents and purposes it was closed

But it wasn’t closed.

Not everyone agreed and not everyone agrees now

Immaterial.

Which accepted canon is correct do you think?

It’s not a matter of “correct.” The canon was never intended to be what we’ve made of it. It was a minimum standard for “stuff that’s ok to read in church.” The church leaders never intended to say that “this stuff is real, and that stuff has no religious value.” The church has always told and written doctrine, opinion, commentary, instruction. That Tradition continues, even though the canon was closed. IMO, the canon should have remained fluid.

Only if you see the RC Church as being the Church and not just part of the Church

The RCC, Orthodox, and Anglican are what the church morphed into pretty early on. As I said earlier, we are all the church. Each iteration — in a spiritual sense — is “the church.”

Where is Paul accused of anything by the Christian leaders in Judea?

Well, there was the whole “Ya gotta become Jewish in order to become a Christian” argument from the church at Jerusalem…

 

[Wildswanderer]

Don’t speak for me, Pal! Not all Protestants buy into sola scriptura. And since we are talking about RCC doctrine, not Protestant doctrine, the extra-biblical writings here are valid and apropos. It ain’t all about you.

Lol. They aren't valid for me. If you want to include all writings by popes and church leaders back in the day, you're going to have a bunch of confusing contradictions, not scripture.

 

[Wildswanderer]

We ask Mary our Mother to go to Jesus for help, we petition her with requests for help!

Praying to a human is bad enough, but you put them in front of Jesus! Unreal.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Jesus cannot be your brother simply because; Mary is NOT your Mother!

She's not Jesus' actual mother either. He always exists. God doesn't have a mother.

 

[Wildswanderer]

The Flesh of Jesus came from Mary NOT Joseph!!
Mary carried Jesus in her womb but also supplied all of the genetic matter for his human body, since it was through her—not Joseph—that Jesus “was descended from David according to the flesh” (Rom. 1:3).

Wildswanderer Jesus is a Man/God Jesus was born a Man/God! 100% God & 100% Man

No, God supplies all the material for his body. What was put in her was from the Holy Spirit, not from herself.

 

[Wildswanderer]

You will never be a good student of biblical studies when you take such a position, as anyone who has spent time in serious scripture studies well knows and reflects that the simple fact that intelligent people can have different interpretations on a particular narrative. Also, it would also be better to abandon religious bigotry as well as that can terribly taint any attempt at objectivity.

As for me, I have no idea if purgatory is correct or not, nor do I lose any sleep over not knowing because I'm not the Judge.

It would seem to be pretty important to know where your eternal soul is going after death, don't you think?

 

[Wildswanderer]

And the canon of that Bible was chosen by those in the Church in the 4th century that you badmouth.

Protestants believe that that process was guided by the Holy Spirit, it does not mean that the person's involved were perfect.

 

[sojourner]

Lol. They aren't valid for me. If you want to include all writings by popes and church leaders back in the day, you're going to have a bunch of confusing contradictions, not scripture.

But this isn’t all about you. The writings are valid for those who ascribe to that Tradition.

The Bible contains contradictions, too.

 

[Wildswanderer]

But this isn’t all about you. The writings are valid for those who ascribe to that Tradition.

The Bible contains contradictions, too.

Um yeah, that's why they are wrong. That's what this conversation is about, whether they are valid traditions.
No scripture doesn't have any real contradictions only perceived ones.

 

[sojourner]

Protestants believe that that process was guided by the Holy Spirit, it does not mean that the person's involved were perfect.

So, if that process was guided by the H.S., why did Martin Luther remove some of the books? And if your reply is either “circumstances alter cases,” or “The H.S. guided M. Luther to do that,” then you’re admitting that the canon is not as rigid as you treat it. Either it’s set, or it’s not. What would be the difference between M. Luther doing what he did, and some other cleric removing, say, Revelation?

 

[Dogknox20]

True, the Mormons might be right in some of the appendages they add.



No false distinction. The writers of the New Testament were part of the Church but not part of the RC Church.
The RC Church is part of the Church but were not the writers of the New Testament.



I don't think that any writings were being added to accepted NT Scripture at that stage (450) so for all intents and purposes it was closed,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,but no official authority had come up with an official statement to that end and sorted out which books it was going to accept and which it was not.
Not everyone agreed and not everyone agrees now.
Which accepted canon is correct do you think?
Personally I go with the same one the Jews went with for the OT and see the NT canon as those books written in the first century and having apostolic authority and association.



Only if you see the RC Church as being the Church and not just part of the Church.
Israel for example existed in the time of the Judges and before there was a Temple and sacrifices in the Temple and Kings etc.

Brian2, I hope all is well...
You are wrong! All the writers of the New Testament were Catholics all Christians were Catholics!
There was no other church except the One Church Jesus established on ROCK not on sand!

Brian2 You are forced to think Jesus a FOOL to believe the ONLY Church Jesus established failed!
25 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. 26 But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. 27 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash.”

Brian2 did Jesus build on ROCK or on sand!? QUESTION.. Is Jesus (God) wise?!
24 “Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock.

18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Ignatius of Antioch
“Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains [i.e., a presbyter]. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).

Brian2 did you see it? just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” A.D. 110

The One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church Jesus established on ROCK is 2000 years old, it is the ONLY Church that has roots back to the Apostles and Jesus! All others are made by men that MUST reject the scriptures! All MUST believe as you that Jesus is a FOOL!

 

[sojourner]

Um yeah, that's why they are wrong. That's what this conversation is about, whether they are valid traditions.
No scripture doesn't have any real contradictions only perceived ones.

Nope. Not wrong. You just don’t ascribe to them.

Of course it does. The two contradicting genealogies of Jesus is a glaring example. And that’s just one.

 

[Dogknox20]

Praying to a human is bad enough, but you put them in front of Jesus! Unreal.

No I put God first!

Mary is the Mother of God! Christians have ALWAYS honored Mary our Mother!
You reject Mary as your mother because you believe what you have been taught over what the scriptures say!
Wildswanderer Christians believe the scriptures the de-Formers MUST reject the scriptures to reject the Body of Jesus.. The One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church!
The ONLY Church Jesus established! Jesus built his church ON ROCK NOT on sand it will never fall! The De-Formers reject Jesus and his Church they call Jesus a FOOL!
18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

26 But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. 27 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash.”

 

[Dogknox20]

She's not Jesus' actual mother either. He always exists. God doesn't have a mother.

Opinion is NOT scripture!
all you have is a wish.. Wanting it to be true will not make it true!
23 “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel” (which means “God with us”).

Christians have ALWAYS called Mary Mother of God!
Irenaeus is a Christian!
“The Virgin Mary, being obedient to his word, received from an angel the glad tidings that she would bear God” (Against Heresies, 5:19:1 [A.D. 189]).

Wildswanderer back in the day it looks as if Irenaeus would have called you "Heretic"!
Heretics are Anti Christian! Christians reject false teachers!

 

[1213]

I was told the same nonsense when I was attending the fundamentalist Protestant church I grew up in. Apparently, you're not familiar with Jesus' Two Commandments plus Paul's warning about being beware of those who cause division within the "one body" as you are doing.

How does my question make division? Can you answer to the question, why don’t they live by it, why they go against its teachings?

 

[Dogknox20]

How does my question make division? Can you answer to the question, why don’t they live by it, why they go against its teachings?

To stay on topic I add...
Acts 17 tells the De-Former they are less then noble!
11 Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

The Bereans rejected "Scriptures ALONE" they accepted the teaching of the Church plus the scriptures! Paul was teaching "Christ Resurrected" this is not found in their OT! They NEEDED Church to find truth!
Those in Thessalonica rejected the teaching of the Church they believed in "Scriptures ALONE"! They were LESS Noble but they will have an excuse when they stand in judgement.. Their OT does NOT have written "Listen to the Church" as we have in the NEW Testament!
The De-Formers are even less noble then those in Thessalonica having NO excuse for rejecting the scriptures they are Ignoble! "Listen to the Church or be treated as pagan!"

A Pagan a person OUTSIDE of God' family! If OUTSIDE you cannot be INSIDE at the same time!

 

[Wildswanderer]

So, if that process was guided by the H.S., why did Martin Luther remove some of the books? And if your reply is either “circumstances alter cases,” or “The H.S. guided M. Luther to do that,” then you’re admitting that the canon is not as rigid as you treat it. Either it’s set, or it’s not. What would be the difference between M. Luther doing what he did, and some other cleric removing, say, Revelation?

Did he though? Those books had been subject of intense debate from the time of Jesus. They were not considered Scripture by the Jewish people. Much of the early church did not include them either. They were not even part of the Catholic canon until 1547. So though Luther did begin the process by which the commonly accepted Protestant Bible came about, it’s foundation was laid 1500 year earlier.

 

[Wildswanderer]

No I put God first!

Not if you have to ask permission from Mary to speak to God!

 

[Wildswanderer]

Opinion is NOT scripture!
all you have is a wish.. Wanting it to be true will not make it true!
23 “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel” (which means “God with us”).

Christians have ALWAYS called Mary Mother of God!
Irenaeus is a Christian!
“The Virgin Mary, being obedient to his word, received from an angel the glad tidings that she would bear God” (Against Heresies, 5:19:1 [A.D. 189]).

Wildswanderer back in the day it looks as if Irenaeus would have called you "Heretic"!
Heretics are Anti Christian! Christians reject false teachers!

He said she would bear God... not that she was literally God's mother. You seem unable or unwilling to understand the distinction.
Was Jesus only God after his human body was formed?