Catholics & Protestants-What's the beef?

[Miss Hepburn]

Well, why are there labels ---Can't everyone just read the Bible and discuss? Does one need a church made of bricks and wood? Can't a church be non-denominational?Are we the church? (1 Cor 3,Eph 1,Eph 2) What did Jesus mean at the base of Mt. Herman -at Cesarea Phillipi ? (Matt 16) Can't the Holy Spirit tell us things we couldn't bear to hear earlier? (John 16)Or do we need someone else to interpret God's inspired Words?Because someone writes something does that make them the only interpreter?Are we capable to interpret?Is it sad there are many denominations? Anglicans, Methodists,Catholics, Church of Christ, Assemblies of God...Or is it just fine - many facets to one diamond - many ways to view any subject none entirely wrong - none entirely correct?Thank you,:)Miss Hepburn......................................................................................................1 Cor 3:16-17 Do you not know that you are a temple of God, and [that] the Spirit of God dwells in you? If any man destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him, for the temple of God is holy, and that is what you are.Ephesians 2:19-22 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God's household, having been built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner [stone], in whom the whole building, being fitted together is growing into a holy temple in the Lord; in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit.Ephesians 1:22-23 And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fulness of Him who fills all in all.1 Corinthians 3:9 For we are God's fellow workers; you are God's field, God's building.Read also of the saints as they took care of each other in Acts 2.

 

[Miss Hepburn]

Because someone writes something does that make them the only interpreter? ---me

And I do mean when someone 'writes something' -which is entirely different than for someone to compile, reject, include and write down.Can no one ever play Abbey Road to country rhythms? Does a poem by Robert Frost have only one interpretation/meaning? ---Or are the poet and songwriter pleased the piece has a life of it's own and expand in people's minds -to possibilities they did not even think of. And then be proud of the blossoming of the piece?I understand God is not Paul McCartney and R. Frost --but doesn't creation bloom, unfold, ever expanding? Does God stay stagnant? Or is He the absolute most expansive, thus growing, learning, changing ---yet staying the same in essence?Food for thought or discussion, is all.

 

[Christina]

well it depends on the catholic we have some very good catholic people and then theres the ones that have no interest in studying scripture. They come here to push their religion on everyone claim we are wrong and only they know the truth. They have no interest in getting along just want to spread their doctrine ... On a Non denominational site.

 

[HammerStone]

Well, I try very hard to avoid denominations. I view things as purely a discussion and debate on doctrine. The best advice I've heard is that if you disagree and feel what's being said is not of God, attack the doctrine and not the person.Your post reminds me of a story. The other day I pointed out a tag out to my fiancee. It bore the name of a popular denomination on it. Now to me, that is absurd. That's the kind of attitude Jesus and Apostle Paul spoke against. Unfortunately some denominations are more zealous than others, and further some individuals are more zealous than others giving their respective denomination a bad name.Someone who is truly of God will find the middle ground. This might upset some of the more conservative crowd for me to say this, and they might point ignorantly to the words of Jesus in Revelation (Revelation 3:16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.) However, I'll upset the more liberal persuasion by pointing also to II John and his urging not to even bid godspeed to a doctrine not of Christ.The middle ground is that you discern what is an issue dealing with salvation and what is an issue with doctrines that won't necessarily influence that core principle of unity in Christ. God gave us each various issues that we might be more proficient than others in; he similarly reveals certain things to some while keeping them hidden from others:

Ephesians 4:11-13And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

In closing, I'll leave with this:

Romans 15:4-6For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope. Now the God of patience and consolation grant you to be likeminded one toward another according to Christ Jesus: That ye may with one mind [and] one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

The idea is to strive for unity, finding it where possible. Paul speaks of not judging anyone in respect to meat or holy days, so when someone maybe has it a little wrong, it's best to take a step back and let it be. We'll all miss some things. I don't necessarily mean to let false doctrine flourish, but if someone believes slightly differently, then back off. State your case, plant the seed, but that's enough.At the same time, to use your example, Frost and McCartney don't have the Holy Spirit to assist readers in reading the intended conclusion. God does, and we cannot discount that factor.

 

[Diana]

You can claim whatever you like to defend your religion However its still just what men have convinced you is true ... Any person who thinks a man has the right to forgive sin or can tell another when they can or cannot have communion with God is under a mis conception/delusiuon. Your priest is only a man appointed by men taught by men. He is but a sinner like all the rest of us. John 20:23 "Whose soever sins ye remit' date=' they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained."[/FONT'] This is misunderstood by many people. No man can forgive another man's sins, for only God can forgive sin, and then only in Jesus name.To claim other wise is a sin and borders on blasheme The Holy Spirit was in them, and it was the Holy Spirit from within that would give the conviction to the other person's spirit. The Spirit of God would move on the other man's spirit, not from the spirit of that Apostles.This is also applied to those that would offend one of God's elect, and anointed. When one person would offend one of God's Elect with the Spirit of God in them, then he has offended the very Spirit of God also, and as such those actions or words will be held against the offender. Of course upon repentance by that offender "in Jesus' name", it is forgiven him by the Father, and blotted out from the eternal record. we are to pray for one another, after you have confessed your sins to our Heavenly Father, and prayed for forgiveness for yourself. When you are right with God, then He will seek to answer your prayers within His will.

This was my response to your Post, which is Post #63:

Confess [your] faults one to another[/B], and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much

No where in any of my posts did I get personal and call you delusional or things like that. I stuck to the topic of discussion. YOU did not.

 

[gumby]

Well personally i dont follow any denominations because the word in itself means division, we as christians have well over 1000 denominations and what im praying for is for people to stop the bickering because of pointless matters and just unite in the name of jesus. I make sure that i check evrything and evryone out in the word however, as christians its our goal to be in unity and fellowship with one another not divisions. Psalms 133:1, Isaiah 52:8, Matthew 23:8, Acts 4:32 and Romans 12:16. God bless :)

 

[Christina]

The scriptural beef is the scripture (sola scripture) We follow scripture as our authority Catholics follow oral tradition as their authority Here's an excellent article written by a man raised Roman Catholic that unbiasedly went about finding the answer to what was correct ..... Both Trent and Vatican I state that it is unlawful for anyone to interpret Scripture 'contrary to the unanimous consent of the fathers.'5 These councils tell us that there is a test by which the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church can be judged and validated-the test of history-as expressed in the principle of unanimous consent. What do the historical facts really reveal for the claims of the Roman Catholic Church relative to its teachings on Scripture, tradition, the canon, the papacy, and Mary?SCRIPTURE AND TRADITIONRoman Catholic dogma teaches that the doctrine of sola scriptura (that Scripture alone is sufficient and the ultimate authority in all matters of faith and morals) is unscriptural. This dogma is unfounded because sola scriptura is the express teaching of Scripture and in particular of the Lord Jesus Christ. The word sufficient is not found in the Word of God in an explicit sense to describe the Scriptures. But neither is the word trinity found in Scripture, yet the doctrine is taught plainly throughout its pages. The same is true with regard to the teaching of sola scriptura. It is as apparent as the teaching of the Trinity.6 The doctrine is clearly demonstrated in the life and teaching of Christ.Clearly Scripture was the ultimate authority for Jesus' personal life and ministry. He always appealed to the written Word of God to settle disputes, never to oral tradition. When He refers to the 'Word of God', His reference is always to recorded Scripture. According to His teaching, Scripture was the final judge of all tradition. In fact, Jesus has virtually nothing positive to say about tradition (cf. Matthew 4:4; 5:17-19; 15:2-9; 22:29-32). Clearly, if the Son of God teaches that all tradition is to be judged by its conformity to the Scriptures, then tradition is subordinate to Scripture and Scripture is logically the ultimate authority.Roman Catholic teaching claims that sola scriptura is unhistorical; that is, it contradicts the universal teaching of the early church. The more I have searched for the truth regarding these Roman Catholic beliefs, the more I have been compelled to conclude that the facts will not support this claim. Sola scriptura was the universal teaching of the church Fathers and for the church as a whole through the later Middle Ages. Cyril of Jerusalem (A.D. 315-386) is reflective of the overall view of the Fathers: Concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures; nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee of these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures....In these articles we comprehend the whole doctrine of faith….For the articles of the Faith were not composed at the good pleasure of men, but the most important points chosen from all Scriptures, make up the one teaching of the Faith….This Faith, in a few words, hath enfolded in its bosom the whole knowledge of godliness contained both in the Old and New Testaments. Behold, therefore, brethren and hold the traditions (2 Thes. 2:15) which ye now receive, and write them on the table of your hearts....Now heed not any ingenious views of mine; else thou mayest be misled; but unless thou receive the witness of the prophets concerning each matter, believe not what is spoken; unless thou learn from Holy Scripture....receive not the witness of man.7Cyril of Jerusalem was a bishop of one of the most important sees of the church and responsible for instructing catechumens in the faith. No clearer concept of sola scriptura could be given than that seen in these statements of Cyril. He equates the teaching he is handing on to these catechumens with tradition, in which he specifically references 2 Thessalonians 2:15, that he says must be proven by Scripture. Tradition is simply the teaching of the church that he is passing on orally, but that tradition must be validated by the written Scriptures. He states further that the extent of authority vested in any teacher, be he bishop or layman, is limited to Scripture. No teaching is to be received that cannot be proven from Scripture. The church does have authority, as Cyril himself acknowledges, but it is an authority grounded in fidelity to Scripture and not principally in succession. According to Cyril, the church is subject to the final authority of Scripture, and even the church is to be disregarded if it moves outside that authority in its teaching.Cyril is a vigorous proponent of the concept of sola scriptura. It is a teaching he handed down to the catechumens as an implicit article of the faith. As one reads the writings of the Fathers it becomes clear that Cyril's statements are representative of the church as a whole. J.N.D. Kelly affirms this observation: The clearest token of the prestige enjoyed by [Scripture] is the fact that almost the entire theological effort of the Fathers, whether their aims were polemical or constructive, was expended upon what amounted to the exposition of the Bible. Further, it was everywhere taken for granted that, for any doctrine to win acceptance, it had first to establish its Scriptural basis.8Therefore, the Protestant teaching of sola scriptura is not a heresy or a novel doctrine, but in reality it is a reaffirmation of the faith of the early church. It is both biblical and historical, yet the Roman Catholic Church continues to teach that oral tradition is a second source of divine revelation, equally as authoritative as Scripture and that this was the view held by the church Fathers. Such a claim, however, contradicts both Scripture and history. When the Fathers speak of a tradition handed down from the apostles independent of Scripture, they are referring to ecclesiastical customs and practices, never to doctrine. Tradition was always subordinate to Scripture as an authority, and the Word of God itself never teaches that tradition is inspired. The Scriptures give numerous warnings against tradition,9 and the Fathers rejected the teaching of an apostolic oral tradition independent of Scripture as a gnostic heresy. For the church Fathers apostolic tradition or teaching was embodied and preserved in Scripture. The teaching of the Fathers is this: What the apostles initially proclaimed and taught orally, they later committed to writing in the New Testament. Irenaeus succinctly states it in these words: We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.10How is one to know what the apostles taught orally? It has been handed down to us in the Scriptures, and they in turn are the ground and pillar of our faith. The historical circumstances that prompted Irenaeus's words are important to understand. He was writing against the Gnostics who claimed to have access to an oral tradition handed down from the apostles, which was independent of the written Word of God. Irenaeus, as well as Tertullian, explicitly repudiates such a concept. The bishops of the church were in the direct line of succession from the apostles, and they were faithful to the apostolic teaching they proclaimed orally, but that doctrine could at every point be validated by Scripture. Ellen Flesseman-Van Leer affirms this: For Irenaeus, the church doctrine is never purely traditional; on the contrary, the thought that there could be some truth transmitted exclusively viva voce (orally) is a Gnostic line of thought.11In fact, the apostle Paul himself states that the gospel he initially preached orally could be verified by the written Scriptures.12 The church as a whole, up to the thirteenth century, never viewed tradition to be a source of revelation. Brian Tierney affirms this:more for those interestedhttp://www.christiantruth.com/Testimony.html

 

[Miss Hepburn]

I had no idea that if we put our cursor on a verse referrence that it highlights the actual verse!!!!Am I the only one that didn't know that? The above quote is a perfect example.:) YaySorry, OT.

 

[Redeemed22]

What a forgiving God we have that we are not destroyed for having denominations. Dividing the Bride of Christ is similar to separating what God has fused; it is like marriage spat upon by divorce. Moses allowed the people to divorce because of their stubbornness, even though God hates divorce. Malachi 2:16. Many denominations form to protect people from bad doctrines, but this can become an endless cycle. There is one head to the Church. Let Him make divisions and demarcations of authority.There is a danger in becoming disillusioned in faith because of the existence of denominations, and church “politics”. I purposely don't shout my lament at the divisions of the Church when I'm with unbelievers, or weak believers. Otherwise, I would have to spend a long time qualifying that salvation, Christ, Christian fraternity, and the Bible are no less real, even when there are divisions. It could be a stumbling block. The divisions of the Church are a travesty, but people going to hell is a worse travesty.-Redeemed22

 

[Miss Hepburn]

Christina,Thanks for that incredible information. Well, written and very clear.

 

[gumby]

:) Yay Sorry' date=' OT.[/COLOR']

Someones hyper today, anywho yes that does happen when people post scripture here. Its a unique feature

 

[Sir Knight]

5[/URL] These councils tell us that there is a test by which the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church can be judged and validated-the test of history-as expressed in the principle of unanimous consent. What do the historical facts really reveal for the claims of the Roman Catholic Church relative to its teachings on Scripture' date=' tradition, the canon, the papacy, and Mary?[FONT=AGaramond']SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION[/FONT]Roman Catholic dogma teaches that the doctrine of sola scriptura (that Scripture alone is sufficient and the ultimate authority in all matters of faith and morals) is unscriptural. This dogma is unfounded because sola scriptura is the express teaching of Scripture and in particular of the Lord Jesus Christ. The word sufficient is not found in the Word of God in an explicit sense to describe the Scriptures. But neither is the word trinity found in Scripture, yet the doctrine is taught plainly throughout its pages. The same is true with regard to the teaching of sola scriptura. It is as apparent as the teaching of the Trinity.6 The doctrine is clearly demonstrated in the life and teaching of Christ.Clearly Scripture was the ultimate authority for Jesus' personal life and ministry. He always appealed to the written Word of God to settle disputes, never to oral tradition. When He refers to the 'Word of God', His reference is always to recorded Scripture. According to His teaching, Scripture was the final judge of all tradition. In fact, Jesus has virtually nothing positive to say about tradition (cf. Matthew 4:4; 5:17-19; 15:2-9; 22:29-32). Clearly, if the Son of God teaches that all tradition is to be judged by its conformity to the Scriptures, then tradition is subordinate to Scripture and Scripture is logically the ultimate authority.Roman Catholic teaching claims that sola scriptura is unhistorical; that is, it contradicts the universal teaching of the early church. The more I have searched for the truth regarding these Roman Catholic beliefs, the more I have been compelled to conclude that the facts will not support this claim. Sola scriptura was the universal teaching of the church Fathers and for the church as a whole through the later Middle Ages. Cyril of Jerusalem (A.D. 315-386) is reflective of the overall view of the Fathers: Concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures; nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee of these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures....In these articles we comprehend the whole doctrine of faith….For the articles of the Faith were not composed at the good pleasure of men, but the most important points chosen from all Scriptures, make up the one teaching of the Faith….This Faith, in a few words, hath enfolded in its bosom the whole knowledge of godliness contained both in the Old and New Testaments. Behold, therefore, brethren and hold the traditions (2 Thes. 2:15) which ye now receive, and write them on the table of your hearts....Now heed not any ingenious views of mine; else thou mayest be misled; but unless thou receive the witness of the prophets concerning each matter, believe not what is spoken; unless thou learn from Holy Scripture....receive not the witness of man.7Cyril of Jerusalem was a bishop of one of the most important sees of the church and responsible for instructing catechumens in the faith. No clearer concept of sola scriptura could be given than that seen in these statements of Cyril. He equates the teaching he is handing on to these catechumens with tradition, in which he specifically references 2 Thessalonians 2:15, that he says must be proven by Scripture. Tradition is simply the teaching of the church that he is passing on orally, but that tradition must be validated by the written Scriptures. He states further that the extent of authority vested in any teacher, be he bishop or layman, is limited to Scripture. No teaching is to be received that cannot be proven from Scripture. The church does have authority, as Cyril himself acknowledges, but it is an authority grounded in fidelity to Scripture and not principally in succession. According to Cyril, the church is subject to the final authority of Scripture, and even the church is to be disregarded if it moves outside that authority in its teaching.Cyril is a vigorous proponent of the concept of sola scriptura. It is a teaching he handed down to the catechumens as an implicit article of the faith. As one reads the writings of the Fathers it becomes clear that Cyril's statements are representative of the church as a whole. J.N.D. Kelly affirms this observation: The clearest token of the prestige enjoyed by [Scripture] is the fact that almost the entire theological effort of the Fathers, whether their aims were polemical or constructive, was expended upon what amounted to the exposition of the Bible. Further, it was everywhere taken for granted that, for any doctrine to win acceptance, it had first to establish its Scriptural basis.8Therefore, the Protestant teaching of sola scriptura is not a heresy or a novel doctrine, but in reality it is a reaffirmation of the faith of the early church. It is both biblical and historical, yet the Roman Catholic Church continues to teach that oral tradition is a second source of divine revelation, equally as authoritative as Scripture and that this was the view held by the church Fathers. Such a claim, however, contradicts both Scripture and history. When the Fathers speak of a tradition handed down from the apostles independent of Scripture, they are referring to ecclesiastical customs and practices, never to doctrine. Tradition was always subordinate to Scripture as an authority, and the Word of God itself never teaches that tradition is inspired. The Scriptures give numerous warnings against tradition,9 and the Fathers rejected the teaching of an apostolic oral tradition independent of Scripture as a gnostic heresy. For the church Fathers apostolic tradition or teaching was embodied and preserved in Scripture. The teaching of the Fathers is this: What the apostles initially proclaimed and taught orally, they later committed to writing in the New Testament. Irenaeus succinctly states it in these words: We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.10How is one to know what the apostles taught orally? It has been handed down to us in the Scriptures, and they in turn are the ground and pillar of our faith. The historical circumstances that prompted Irenaeus's words are important to understand. He was writing against the Gnostics who claimed to have access to an oral tradition handed down from the apostles, which was independent of the written Word of God. Irenaeus, as well as Tertullian, explicitly repudiates such a concept. The bishops of the church were in the direct line of succession from the apostles, and they were faithful to the apostolic teaching they proclaimed orally, but that doctrine could at every point be validated by Scripture. Ellen Flesseman-Van Leer affirms this: For Irenaeus, the church doctrine is never purely traditional; on the contrary, the thought that there could be some truth transmitted exclusively viva voce (orally) is a Gnostic line of thought.11In fact, the apostle Paul himself states that the gospel he initially preached orally could be verified by the written Scriptures.12 The church as a whole, up to the thirteenth century, never viewed tradition to be a source of revelation. Brian Tierney affirms this:more for those interestedhttp://www.christiantruth.com/Testimony.html

if all we need is the bible on it's own, how do you explain the canon of Scripture? How do you know what Scriptures are inspired using only the bible? You cannot, and this is devastating to the notion of sola Scriptura. You see, it was the Catholic Church who selected the canon of Scripture at the end of the fourth century. How did it do that? The Church was led into this truth by the power of the Holy Spirit and used apostolic tradition to determine the apostolicity of the Scriptures. It also made this decision nearly 300 years after the death of the last apostle. If the Church can make an infallible decision 300 years after the death of the last apostle, then how come it cannot make equally authoritative decisions today? You cannot account for sola Scriptura during this period between the apostle John's death and the selection of the canon (and you cannot say that there was a New Testament canon established before 382 A.D. because many texts, such as the Apocalypse, 3 John, Paul’s letter to the Hebrews, etc. were subject to a lot of debate; as were works such as the Didache and Clement's letter). This destroys the theory of sola Scriptura. You should also contemplate why there is not a single early Church father who espoused this theory of sola Scriptura. Instead, this novel theology was introduced by Luther, almost 1,500 years after Christ's ascension. You can't rely on Protestant exegetes of the 20th century to prove this novel theory. You must familiarize yourself with the fathers and doctors of the Church, those taught by the apostles and their successors. Christ's Church was built upon Peter, to whom Jesus gave the keys of the kingdom of heaven. These keys represent the authority over the new Davidic kingdom restored and renewed in Jesus Christ. (cf. Isaiah 22:19-22). Re-acquaint yourself with history, and you will be in for a holy shock.Let me try to make this succinct.1. Sola Scriptura says everything we need to know that is necessary for our salvation comes from the Bible alone.2. Knowing what Scriptures are inspired and what Scriptures are not inspired is necessary for our salvation.3. Knowing what Scriptures are inspired and what Scriptures are not inspired cannot be known from the Bible.4. Therefore, sola Scripture cannot be true.The foregoing is irrefutable. That's where our debate begins and ends.

 

[Christina]

Let me try to make this succinct. 1. Sola Scriptura says everything we need to know that is necessary for our salvation comes from the Bible alone. 2. Knowing what Scriptures are inspired and what Scriptures are not inspired is necessary for our salvation. 3. Knowing what Scriptures are inspired and what Scriptures are not inspired cannot be known from the Bible. 4. Therefore, sola Scripture cannot be true. The foregoing is irrefutable. That's where our debate begins and ends. [quote] This is an outragous statement !!!!!!!!!!! So your church of men decide which prophets are right and wrong?and which scripure is inspired ? God says Lo I come in the book !! All the bible is the inspired word of God !!!!!!! Yet men in your religion have decided, they can pick and chose which scripture is inspired ??? So now you claiming to speak for God .!!!! You even ignore and dismiss the earlier church fathers words that you claim your religion is based on ... The closer they were to Jesus time ..they are dismissed is that about it .. Yet you claim your religion is the only true one .. But call God Word and the early church fathers wrong if they dont agree with what men today in your church have taught you ??... If you dont believe the HOLY BIBLE is the INSPIRED WORD OF GOD that about says it all ..for me ....yours is only a religion of men ....not of faith not Gods Word ... Just a few verses that you must then call a lie to follow your religion ...that about says it all for me r 10:7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God. Pro 30:5 Every word of God [is] pure: he [is] a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Isa 40:8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever. Mar 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye. ,Mat 4:4But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Luk 4:4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God. Jhn 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Act 19:20 So mightily grew the word of God and prevailed. 2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. Rev 19:13 And he [was] clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. Rev 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book.

 

[Miss Hepburn]

If anyone cares to broach this...why were certain Gospels dismissed?I mean in The Lost Gospels I read (maybe not true) that one reason was, for example, there was a story of the boy Jesus brought back to life coming to Jesus' tent in linen bed clothes and Jesus' admitting him in with no one else and staying all night with him. So what?!! But, someone thought that might be misconstrued! He was just raised from the dead -maybe remembered his experiences on the other side - it would take me all night with the Man who just raised me -to sit at His Feet and learn.But what say you all? (I only skimmed that book.)Were other's accounts of Jesus' words and healings not worthy for us to know about?Perhaps they were simply repetitious?Thanks:)Miss Hepburn

 

[Christina]

[/B] He was just raised from the dead -maybe remembered his experiences on the other side - it would take me all night with the Man who just raised me -to sit at His Feet and learn. But what say you all? (I only skimmed that book.)Were other's accounts of Jesus' words and healings not worthy for us to know about?Perhaps they were simply repetitious? Thanks:)Miss Hepburn

Many books were excluded for very good reasons ..There was many sects at the time Gnostic's for example and all were claiming to be the truth there was no written Bible only thousands of writings If they could not be proved to be untampered with forged, repeats or copies of copies from earlier books ... Written by proven prophets incomplete ect ect ...they were not added .... because they couldn't be verified not to try to pick what would taught ... These other books were available just not included in the Bible ... They cant not be verified as accurate or untampered with ... That doesnt mean every word in them is untrue ..only that there was a problem with them ...There are no contradictions in scripture .. Only misinterpretation of men .... God made the World and everything in it ...Surely a book coming out the way he wanted was no big task for him ... We call that faith because God said Lo I come in the book ... Its his book his Word ..

 

[Diana]

[/B]

The Catholic Church rejected some of the books because some of them went against the Apostles' teachings. Books that say that Christ did not die on the cross were rejected. Some say that Christ is not God. These books were also rejected. Other books such as the Gospel of Thomas was rejected because it contain only sayings of Jesus and that was all. Books such as the one written by Mary Magdalene was rejected because it was incomplete and its authorship could not be verified.

 

[Sir Knight]

[/I] The foregoing is irrefutable. That's where our debate begins and ends. [quote] This is an outragous statement !!!!!!!!!!! So your church of men decide which prophets are right and wrong?and which scripure is inspired ? God says Lo I come in the book !! All the bible is the inspired word of God !!!!!!! Yet men in your religion have decided, they can pick and chose which scripture is inspired ??? So now you claiming to speak for God .!!!! You even ignore and dismiss the earlier church fathers words that you claim your religion is based on ... The closer they were to Jesus time ..they are dismissed is that about it .. Yet you claim your religion is the only true one .. But call God Word and the early church fathers wrong if they dont agree with what men today in your church have taught you ??... If you dont believe the HOLY BIBLE is the INSPIRED WORD OF GOD that about says it all ..for me ....yours is only a religion of men ....not of faith not Gods Word ... Just a few verses that you must then call a lie to follow your religion ...that about says it all for me r 10:7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God. Pro 30:5 Every word of God [is] pure: he [is] a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Isa 40:8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever. Mar 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye. ,Mat 4:4But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Luk 4:4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God. Jhn 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Act 19:20 So mightily grew the word of God and prevailed. 2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. Rev 19:13 And he [was] clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. Rev 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book.

Before you start quoting scripture to me, PROVE to me that what you are quoting is indeed the Word of God. Prove to me that the Gospel of Thomas, which was written by an Apostle and which claims to be sacred scripture does not belong in the bible and that the Gospel of Mark, which was written by somebody that was not even a disciple of Jesus, does belong in the bible.Somebody either had the authority to make those decisions or they didn't. If they didn't, then you have no proof that the books were included are actually the Word of God and the books that were excluded are not the Word of God.And, if somebody did have the authority over the Word of God, then show me biblically how that authority was removed once the bible was assembled.

 

[gumby]

I dont think the issue here is authority, this reminds me in the part of the bible where the elders questioned jesus on his authority. Prove to me that your words are the words you type, for all i know you could have someone else typing for you. Remember John 2:15 though jesus took a whip and drove out all the greedy sellers. I see the same thing in our modern churches exept there selling mens tradition and empty philosiphy not based on the word of god. John 1:1 declares that the bible is indeed the word of god.

 

[Diana]

Jesus' authority came from God and Jesus is God. Jesus said that just as the Father as sent me so I have sent you. This is Christ giving authority. And this authority has been passed down to the Church that He established - the same Church that put together the books of the Bible.

 

[n2thelight]

Can any Catholic here give me a list of oral traditions?