Books Outside the Bible

[BreadOfLife]

Yep, your source is roman Catholicism.

How surprising....not.

No - it's the BIBLE.
The languages and history simply support what Scripture already says about her.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Why does it matter when it was written or who wrote it? It's part of Catholic doctrine now.

Because it shows that we've been here since the beginning.
ONE, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Core, thanks for the links. Here's some interesting trivia for you. I figured out why BoL objects when someone calls his church the "Roman Catholic Church." The Eastern Orthodox Church maintains that they excommunicated Rome, so they started calling them "Roman Catholic." The EO believe that they are the true Catholic Church.

Good grief – more of your ignorant, shoddily-researched drivel . . .

The term “Roman” Catholic has TWO origins, Einstein:
1. This term was used by Henry VIII to differentiate his “Catholic” Church of England from the true Catholic Church of Rome.

2. It also refers to ONE of TWENTY Rites that comprise the Catholic Church.
Others include the Melkite Rite, Maronite Rite, Byzantine Rite, Coptic Rite, etc.

Do your homework . . .

 

[Prayer Warrior]

Turns out that nothing in Ephesians 4 cancel 2 Tim 3:16, or Acts 17:11 or Mark 7:6-13. Your idea of canceling scriptures that you don't prefer with something in Ephesians 4 is not compelling.

You have just exposed the flaw in your own argument.

The "Sola Scriptura" doctrine that all teaching and tradition must be tested by the Word of God to "see IF it is so" - if it is approved.. or to see that it contradicts God's Word... is not the same thing as the doctrine "tradition does not exist" which you appear to have imagined for us - just then.

Were we simply "not supposed to notice"?

I can't stress enough how much I agree with Bob's post!!! It's not that Protestants deny tradition and what the apostles said about it in the Bible. We reject MAN's spin on tradition.

The Pharisees put there own spin on tradition and ignored what was given by God, so their traditions were not of God, but of MEN. Jesus criticized and rejected their MAN-MADE traditions. The Pharisees missed the spirit of the Law because all they could see was the letter of the Law. But the letter of the Law KILLS; the Holy Spirit gives life!

Mark 7:8-9--"'Disregarding the command of God, you keep the tradition of men.' [Jesus] also said to them, 'You completely invalidate God’s command in order to maintain your tradition!'"

2 Cor. 3:4-6--"We have this kind of confidence toward God through Christ. It is not that we are competent in ourselves to consider anything as coming from ourselves, but our competence is from God. He has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter, but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit produces life."
.

 

[Marymog]

What most Catholic scholars would be aware of, and hide, and most Protestant scholars unaware of, do have no foundation for understanding this topic, is the historically verifiable fact that before Jerome existed a Bible originating in Antioch, written in the Itala language, and used as the foundation for the true church among the Waldenses and Albigenses and the Celtic churches for centuries. Jerome's Latin Vulgate was Rome's pet, but rejected by everyone else.
Roman propaganda and lies will of course dispute this, branding those ancient heroes of the faith as heretics. However, an honest study of history, and the writings of many historians gives the lie to such fraudulent claims from the Roman counterfeiters.

Soooooo anything written by Rome is a lie but anything written by Brakelite or anyone that disagrees with Rome is the truth?

Makes sense to me.....

 

[Prayer Warrior]

Good grief – more of your ignorant, shoddily-researched drivel . . .

The term “Roman” Catholic has TWO origins, Einstein:
1. This term was used by Henry VIII to differentiate his “Catholic” Church of England from the true Catholic Church of Rome.

2. It also refers to ONE of TWENTY Rites that comprise the Catholic Church.
Others include the Melkite Rite, Maronite Rite, Byzantine Rite, Coptic Rite, etc.

Do your homework . . .

No, breadman, I'm not ignorant of the unbiblical Roman Catholic doctrine any more, partly thanks to you!

 

[Marymog]

@Marymog recently put the Catholic view of scripture in perfect perspective, perhaps unwittingly, but succinctly nevertheless. In referring to herself and her fellow Catholics, she said, quote, us non Bible believing Christians.

Thank you for ready my post sir.

Would you please reveal WHICH post of mine you are referring to? I look forward to your evidence.

Curious Mary

 

[CoreIssue]

BOL defends Catholicism like democrats defend Obama and Hillary.

 

[BreadOfLife]

It seems prayerwarrior is ordering me to leave you alone.
It figures you can't stand on your own two feet.

Why would he tell you that??
He needs all the help he can get . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

BOL defends Catholicism like democrats defend Obama and Hillary.

To defend Christ's Church is to defend Christ (Acts 9:4-5, Eph. 1:22-23).

 

[CoreIssue]

To defend Christ's Church is to defend Christ (Acts 9:4-5, Eph. 1:22-23).

The catholic church is not the body of Christ.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Thankyou for providing all the evidence needed to prove that the apostasy of the church began so early, and proof that the supporters of the Roman apostasy so early demanded obedience, not to Christ, but to the bishop of Rome who already had taken on the role of Antichrist.

You’ll have to do better than that.

Ignatius of Antioch, who was a student of the Apostle John wrote the following to the people of Smrynea on his was to his martyrdom in Rome – while the Apostle John was STILL ALIVE:

Ignatius of Antioch
See that ye all follow the BISHOP, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the BISHOP. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the BISHOP shall appear, there let the multitude of the people also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church (Epistle to the Smyrnaeans 8 [A.D. 107]).

Do your HOMEWORK . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

The catholic church is not the body of Christ.

Sure it is.
Thank you for that impotent argument.

 

[CoreIssue]

Sure it is.
Thank you for that impotent argument.

All you do is make doctrinal claims. No real proofs.

 

[BreadOfLife]

less falsehood.. more Bible please.
For example - heresy following Paul's "departure" from "within" ...

17 From Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called to him the elders of the church. 18 And when they had come to him, he said to them,

“You yourselves know, from the first day that I set foot in Asia, how I was with you the whole time..29 I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; 30 and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them. 31 Therefore be on the alert, remembering that night and day for a period of three years I did not cease to admonish each one with tears."

And your "solution" is to go to the THIRD CENTURY for "pure doctrine"??
The rest of us prefer the actual Word of God. Surely you would have noticed this by now.

No “falsehood” here. YOU need to pay attention . . .

I simply went to the 3rd century because somebody was trying to say that Cyprian of Carthage was NOT in agreement with Catholic teaching in regards to the Authority of the Bishops. It was about CYPRIAN who lived in the THIRD century. Pay attention . . .

We can go ALL the way back to Scripture for evidence of the Authority of the Bishops.
In post #932 – I pretty much destroyed your notion that I “HAD” to go to the 3rd century for evidence . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

All you do is make doctrinal claims. No real proofs.

I've done nothing BUT present Scripture, history and linguistic evidence.
All YOU'VE done is give ignorant opinons . . .

 

[epostle]

I can't stress enough how much I agree with Bob's post!!! It's not that Protestants deny tradition and what the apostles said about it in the Bible. We reject MAN's spin on tradition.

The Pharisees put there own spin on tradition and ignored what was given by God, so their traditions were not of God, but of MEN. Jesus criticized and rejected their MAN-MADE traditions. The Pharisees missed the spirit of the Law because all they could see was the letter of the Law. But the letter of the Law KILLS; the Holy Spirit gives life!

Mark 7:8-9--"'Disregarding the command of God, you keep the tradition of men.' [Jesus] also said to them, 'You completely invalidate God’s command in order to maintain your tradition!'"

2 Cor. 3:4-6--"We have this kind of confidence toward God through Christ. It is not that we are competent in ourselves to consider anything as coming from ourselves, but our competence is from God. He has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter, but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit produces life."
.

Catholicism has not changed the definition of Tradition for 2000 years.
Anti-Catholics change the definition so it fits their presuppositions so they can accuse Catholics of spin.
Mark 7:8-9 has nothing to do with the Traditions Paul tells us to keep.
This is about the 20th time Mark 7 has been quoted, which shows it's the only verse PW can find on Tradition. Who has the spin?

 

[epostle]

Q: In Matthew 15:1-9 (the "you make void the word of God by your tradition" passage), didn't Jesus indicate that any tradition which contradicts Scripture is false, meaning that we must test traditions by Scripture, meaning that tradition is inferior to Scripture?

A: It is true that any proposed tradition which contradicts Apostolic Scripture is a false tradition and must be rejected, but this does not make Apostolic Tradition inferior to Scripture for that reason. It is also true that any proposed scripture which contradicts Apostolic Tradition is a false scripture and must be rejected.

This was, in fact, one of the ways in which the canon of the New Testament was selected. Any scriptures which contained doctrines which were contrary to the Traditions the apostles had handed down to the Church Fathers were rejected. Between the Gnostic gospels (like the Gospel of Thomas) or Marcion's edited version of Luke and Paul's epistles, there were a lot of heretical writings that different groups wanted to see in the New Testament. But the Fathers said, "No, this contradicts the faith that was handed down to us from the apostles. Thus it must be a forged writing."

So while tradition must be tested against Scripture to see if the tradition is apostolic, it is also true that scripture must be tested against Tradition to see if the scripture is apostolic. There is complementarity here, and one mode of teaching is not automatically inferior to the other.
INFO: The sources of theology

(this is denied by radical Protestants; they are forced to re-write history)

 

[BobRyan]

Right.
He was talking about the CATHOLIC Church . . .

Cyprian of Carthage
"They who have not peace themselves now offer peace to others. They who have withdrawn from the Church promise to lead back and to recall the lapsed to the Church. There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one Chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewehre is scattering." (Cyprian, Letter 43 (40), 5, c. AD 251)
...
You messed with the WRONG Catholic . . .

less falsehood.. more Bible please.

For example - heresy following Paul's "departure" from "within" ...

17 From Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called to him the elders of the church. 18 And when they had come to him, he said to them,

“You yourselves know, from the first day that I set foot in Asia, how I was with you the whole time..29 I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; 30 and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them. 31 Therefore be on the alert, remembering that night and day for a period of three years I did not cease to admonish each one with tears."

And your "solution" is to go to the THIRD CENTURY for "pure doctrine"??

The rest of us prefer the actual Word of God. Surely you would have noticed this by now.

Paul is talking about Gnostic heretics, not bishops. "fierce wolves will come in among you" means they were not internal, they came in from outside.

Until you actually read the text -- "and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them"

Bible details matter -- as I am sure we both agree.

Paul, John, Ignatius wrote in opposition to these people.

Two of which were Bible writers. Ignatius has a number of false fraudlent documents and others "rife with interpolation" to sift through... as compared to actual scripture.

Your understanding of "doctrine" has undergone many changes over the last century.

Apparently I am not nearly as old as you must think I am.

What Is Doctrine?
The term "doctrine" comes from the Latin word doctrina, which simply means "teaching."

Ok but that is what we all say. How is that differentiating anything on this topic?

As used today, though, the word means a bit more than that. Ideas developed by a faithful Catholic theologian may represent Catholic theology but that do not make them Catholic doctrine.

For that the intervention of the Magisterium

Mark 7:6-13 we have Christ hammering the majisterium of the one true nation church started by God at Sinai -- "sola scriptura". Showing us just how it is done.

.
7 ‘But in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’
8 Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”
9 He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, is to be put to death’; 11 but you say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),’ 12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; 13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”

 

[epostle]

No “falsehood” here. YOU need to pay attention . . .

I simply went to the 3rd century because somebody was trying to say that Cyprian of Carthage was NOT in agreement with Catholic teaching in regards to the Authority of the Bishops. It was about CYPRIAN who lived in the THIRD century. Pay attention . . .

We can go ALL the way back to Scripture for evidence of the Authority of the Bishops.
In post #932 – I pretty much destroyed your notion that I “HAD” to go to the 3rd century for evidence . . .

The Council of Nicaea is a very useful apologetics tool beyond just discussing matters of the Trinity. What most people don't realize is that Nicaea produced more than just a Creed, it also issued 20 canonical laws which were binding on all Christians living at that time. The information contained in these Canons is just as useful (if not more so) as any Church Father when it comes to evaluating Protestantism against the bar of Church history.

Below, I will mention why each of the 20 Canons are incompatible with all Protestantism in one way or another. This leaves Protestantism in a significant bind, because virtually all Protestants wholeheartedly affirm the Creed and deem the Council to be an orthodox testimony in early Christianity. After reading these Canons, the Protestant must recognize that they cannot embrace the Creed without also embracing the Canons, because if the Canons teach heresy and error, then the Protestant has no business at all embracing the Creed which this same Council produced. Protestants have no problem affirming the Catholic Church is correct on a lot of things, but they say the Catholic Church is false and cannot be trusted because it also teaches many errors. By this same logic, a Protestant must reject Nicaea as well, for Nicaea teaches many "errors" in its Canons and binds all Christians to these "errors" as well.

NICK'S CATHOLIC BLOG: Why Protestants reject the Council of Nicaea.

The Council of Nicae of 325 A.D. affirmed the Doctrine of the Trinity with Tradition and Scripture, it was proven what was always believed; they didn't "invent" the Trinity.
"The Trinity can be proven from Scripture, indeed (material sufficiency), but Scripture Alone as a principle was not formally sufficient to prevent the Arian crisis from occurring. In other words, the decisive factor in these controversies was the appeal to apostolic succession and Tradition, which showed that the Church had always been trinitarian." The heretic Arius lost because the tradition of Arianism did not exist.

NICK'S CATHOLIC BLOG: Sola Scriptura: Formal versus Material Sufficiency