Scripture with Scripture
- Thread starter Mjh29
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Thank you for your concern about this.(Amadeus, does size 5 help you? I feel like I am yelling with size 6 type.I never thought about that. Never liked them large print books.)
It depends on the font you use as well as the size. I use 6 for Times New Roman, but on some other fonts that comes out too big. If you use another font just compare the resulting size with my posts. For very short posts I have little real problem with even small letters but for longer posts with few or no paragraph spaces the difficulty is noticeable. I know how to increase the size of another person posts [Control + or -] but I don't routinely do that unless I really have a strong incentive to read it carefully.
When I respond to a person while I use the 6 with the Times New Roman, I reduce the size of the quotes of the other persons to 5 Time New Roman for a better contrast.
As to the large print books, I love them as you might imagine.
Non-Catholics can agree on this but *Holy Tradition* frequently trumps Scripture for Catholics.
One would hope so, but frequently Scriptures are not provided to back up what is being said.
This could become quite extensive, but the key doctrine is the Doctrine of Christ: And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God [Theos] was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. (1 Tim 3:16 KJB).
There are quite a few here who cannot believe that Jesus is God. And without that fundamental belief, all else falls apart. In fact, the apostle John tells us that the way to distinguish between the spirit of truth and the spirit of error (also called the spirit of antichrist) is this litmus test -- "Has Jesus Christ come in the flesh?" which translates into "Did God the Word become Man as Jesus of Nazareth?" (John 1:1).
That is a lie and I am quite sure it has been explained to you many times why it is a lie. There are bad traditions we must avoid, but Scripture also gives good traditions that St. Paul tells us to follow. There are two types of traditions in Scripture, focusing on just the bad ones and using that alone as a definition of all tradition is a false man made tradition in itself, and a very poor choice of anti-Catholic weaponry.
The first NT book was written over 20 years after Pentecost. It's teachings were preserved by a mode of transmission called Holy Tradition. The main instrument in discerning fake books from inspired books was Holy Tradition, because the Bible as we know it, did not exist and could not be "measured against". There was no complete NT canon for 350 years. If it were not for the Tradition of the episcopate, there would be no Bible. This is where you are forced to re-write history, because history is your enemy.
These truths (taught consistently for 2000 years) have been borrowed from the same historic Church you despise. Your prejudice against Catholicism is irrational.
Nancy
Well-Known Member
You and I both Amadeus, my eyes are not great, so large print is the way to go with me.
OzSpen
Well-Known Member
- Mar 30, 2015
- 3,728
- 795
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- Australia
So do you consider purgatory, prayer for the departed saints, penance, the exalted place of the priesthood to forgive sins, etc are supported by Scripture?
bbyrd009
Groper
- Nov 30, 2016
- 33,943
- 12,081
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States Minor Outlying Islands
bbyrd009
Groper
- Nov 30, 2016
- 33,943
- 12,081
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States Minor Outlying Islands
or that we have IDed them correctly either i guess; obviously those deemed that by the world would not be those God deems that, etc
I had said: "Non-Catholics can agree on this but *Holy Tradition* frequently trumps Scripture for Catholics."
Epostle's response was "That is a lie and I am quite sure it has been explained to you many times why it is a lie."
Well it is really quite easy to show that that is NOT a lie. Let us take the most glaring example, which is that the apostle Peter was the first bishop of Rome, and indeed that the Papacy is rooted in this idea. According to the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia entry for Papacy: This term is employed in an ecclesiastical and in an historical signification. In the former of these uses it denotes the ecclesiastical system in which the pope as successor of St. Peter and Vicar of Jesus Christ governs the Catholic Church as its supreme head.
For something this critical surely there would be incontrovertible support in Scripture. But that is not what we find. Instead, we find that Peter was designated as the apostle to the *Circumcision* (the Jews), and there is no mention of him going to Rome, and establishing a church there or being called the bishop of Rome.
For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles (Gal 2:8)
Or as the NET Bible paraphrases this: For he who empowered Peter for his apostleship to the circumcised also empowered me for my apostleship to the Gentiles.
Indeed Peter is not even mentioned in Paul's epistle to the Romans, but we find Peter along with James and the other apostles in Jerusalem giving instructions to Paul, Barnabas, and others in Acts 15 regarding the application of the Law of Moses to Gentiles. And Matthew 16:18 had to be reinterpreted to make Peter (Petros) "the Rock", instead of Christ, who called Himself Petra, the true Rock.
Thus the RCC had to go outside Scripture to come up with the concept of the Papacy, and "Holy Tradition" carved that in stone. So the real issue that Christians have to deal with is this: Why was Peter's never connected with Rome in the Bible if this was so critical for Christianity?
According to History of the Christian Church by Philip Schaff, the Catholic claims about Peter in Rome are not solidly based on fact.
"We conclude then that Peter's presence in Rome before 63 is made extremely doubtful, if not impossible, by the silence of Luke and Paul, when speaking of Rome and writing from Rome, and that His presence after 63 can neither be proved nor disproved from the New Testament, and must be decided by post-biblical testimonies.
It is the uniform tradition of the eastern and western churches that Peter preached the gospel in Rome, and suffered martyrdom there in the Neronian persecution. So say more or less clearly, yet not without admixture of error, Clement of Rome (who mentions the martyrdom, but not the place), at the close of the first century; Ignatius of Antioch (indistinctly), Dionysius of Corinth, Irenaeus of Lyons, Caius of Rome, in the second century; Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Hippolytus, Tertullian, in the third; Lactantius, Eusebius, Jerome, and others, in the fourth.
To these patristic testimonies may be added the apocryphal testimonies of the pseudo-Petrine and pseudo-Clementine fictions, which somehow connect Peter's name with the founding of the churches of Antioch, Alexandria, Corinth, and Rome. However these testimonies from various men and countries may differ in particular circumstances, they can only be accounted for on the supposition of some fact at the bottom; for they were previous to any use or abuse of this, tradition for heretical or for orthodox and hierarchical purposes.
The chief error of the witnesses from Dionysius and Irenaeus onward is that Peter is associated with Paul as "founder" of the church of Rome; but this may be explained from the very probable fact that some of the "strangers from Rome" who witnessed the Pentecostal miracle and heard the sermon of Peter, as also some disciples who were scattered abroad by the persecution after the martyrdom of Stephen, carried the seed of the gospel to Rome, and that these converts of Peter became the real founders of the Jewish-Christian congregation in the metropolis. Thus the indirect agency of Peter was naturally changed into a direct agency by tradition which forgot the names of the pupils in the glorification of the teacher.
The time of Peter's arrival in Rome, and the length of his residence there, cannot possibly be ascertained. The above mentioned silence of the Acts and of Paul's Epistles allows him only a short period of labor there, after 63. The Roman tradition of a twenty or twenty-five years' episcopate of Peter in Rome is unquestionably a colossal chronological mistake. Nor can we fix the year of his martyrdom, except that it must have taken place after July, 64, when the Neronian persecution broke out (according to Tacitus). It is variously assigned to every year between 64 and 69. We shall return to it again below, and in connection with the martyrdom of Paul, with which it is associated in tradition."
Epostle's response was "That is a lie and I am quite sure it has been explained to you many times why it is a lie."
Well it is really quite easy to show that that is NOT a lie. Let us take the most glaring example, which is that the apostle Peter was the first bishop of Rome, and indeed that the Papacy is rooted in this idea. According to the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia entry for Papacy: This term is employed in an ecclesiastical and in an historical signification. In the former of these uses it denotes the ecclesiastical system in which the pope as successor of St. Peter and Vicar of Jesus Christ governs the Catholic Church as its supreme head.
For something this critical surely there would be incontrovertible support in Scripture. But that is not what we find. Instead, we find that Peter was designated as the apostle to the *Circumcision* (the Jews), and there is no mention of him going to Rome, and establishing a church there or being called the bishop of Rome.
For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles (Gal 2:8)
Or as the NET Bible paraphrases this: For he who empowered Peter for his apostleship to the circumcised also empowered me for my apostleship to the Gentiles.
Indeed Peter is not even mentioned in Paul's epistle to the Romans, but we find Peter along with James and the other apostles in Jerusalem giving instructions to Paul, Barnabas, and others in Acts 15 regarding the application of the Law of Moses to Gentiles. And Matthew 16:18 had to be reinterpreted to make Peter (Petros) "the Rock", instead of Christ, who called Himself Petra, the true Rock.
Thus the RCC had to go outside Scripture to come up with the concept of the Papacy, and "Holy Tradition" carved that in stone. So the real issue that Christians have to deal with is this: Why was Peter's never connected with Rome in the Bible if this was so critical for Christianity?
According to History of the Christian Church by Philip Schaff, the Catholic claims about Peter in Rome are not solidly based on fact.
"We conclude then that Peter's presence in Rome before 63 is made extremely doubtful, if not impossible, by the silence of Luke and Paul, when speaking of Rome and writing from Rome, and that His presence after 63 can neither be proved nor disproved from the New Testament, and must be decided by post-biblical testimonies.
It is the uniform tradition of the eastern and western churches that Peter preached the gospel in Rome, and suffered martyrdom there in the Neronian persecution. So say more or less clearly, yet not without admixture of error, Clement of Rome (who mentions the martyrdom, but not the place), at the close of the first century; Ignatius of Antioch (indistinctly), Dionysius of Corinth, Irenaeus of Lyons, Caius of Rome, in the second century; Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Hippolytus, Tertullian, in the third; Lactantius, Eusebius, Jerome, and others, in the fourth.
To these patristic testimonies may be added the apocryphal testimonies of the pseudo-Petrine and pseudo-Clementine fictions, which somehow connect Peter's name with the founding of the churches of Antioch, Alexandria, Corinth, and Rome. However these testimonies from various men and countries may differ in particular circumstances, they can only be accounted for on the supposition of some fact at the bottom; for they were previous to any use or abuse of this, tradition for heretical or for orthodox and hierarchical purposes.
The chief error of the witnesses from Dionysius and Irenaeus onward is that Peter is associated with Paul as "founder" of the church of Rome; but this may be explained from the very probable fact that some of the "strangers from Rome" who witnessed the Pentecostal miracle and heard the sermon of Peter, as also some disciples who were scattered abroad by the persecution after the martyrdom of Stephen, carried the seed of the gospel to Rome, and that these converts of Peter became the real founders of the Jewish-Christian congregation in the metropolis. Thus the indirect agency of Peter was naturally changed into a direct agency by tradition which forgot the names of the pupils in the glorification of the teacher.
The time of Peter's arrival in Rome, and the length of his residence there, cannot possibly be ascertained. The above mentioned silence of the Acts and of Paul's Epistles allows him only a short period of labor there, after 63. The Roman tradition of a twenty or twenty-five years' episcopate of Peter in Rome is unquestionably a colossal chronological mistake. Nor can we fix the year of his martyrdom, except that it must have taken place after July, 64, when the Neronian persecution broke out (according to Tacitus). It is variously assigned to every year between 64 and 69. We shall return to it again below, and in connection with the martyrdom of Paul, with which it is associated in tradition."
bbyrd009
Groper
- Nov 30, 2016
- 33,943
- 12,081
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States Minor Outlying Islands
so you say, but cannot Quote, wadr.
Do your very best then, and set us up a question that can be answered by one of your Absolute Truths, if you will.
if you wish you can give the Answer too, but that is secondary for now; in fact prolly best if you don't, or maybe even put it in a spoiler or something? Might even be fun! Ok well maybe not for you in the moment lol
that would depend upon you i guess
When we all
get to heaven...
(sing it with me
)hope you come to see that one could reject all three of them just as easily and still be justified
as hard as that might be to get
Last edited:
Comparing Scripture with Scripture is good, but ones method of interpretation will determine what you believe that Scripture to be saying. And even though some may have no theological training, they still have a method of interpreting the Scripture.
When are verses to be interpreted literally or figuratively? I believe everyone uses both literal and figurative methods, but they disagree on what is literal and what is figurative. For example, Israel in the Old Testament is viewed by all as literally Israel. But then in the New Testament it is interpreted as the Church by some. Others still interpret it literally as Israel and not the Church.
So the dispensationalist and the amillennialist can never agree, though each compare Scripture with Scripture, as their method of what is literal and what is spiritual or figuartive is not the same.
I think one should think on, what makes me think this should be literal and not figurative or symbolical?
Stranger
Seriously, actually READ what I wrote, instead of seeing if you can work up an argument about something. There is not one of those things Catholics present without what they feel is Scriptural verification. And we cannot dispute that obvious fact... We can ONLY dispute their interpretations of the Scriptures they use.
Originally Posted by: Willie T
"Catholics back up just about EVERYTHING they believe with Scripture. BUT... most Protestants are not willing to accept their interpretations of those Scriptures. However, they are STILL very clearly and (in their views) accurately backed-up.
What do we do with situations like that?"
so you say, but cannot Quote, wadr.
Do your very best then, and set us up a question that can be answered by one of your Absolute Truths, if you will.
if you wish you can give the Answer too, but that is secondary for now; in fact prolly best if you don't, or maybe even put it in a spoiler or something? Might even be fun! Ok well maybe not for you in the moment lol
that would depend upon you i guess
When we all
get to heaven...
(sing it with me
hope you come to see that one could reject all three of them just as easily and still be justified
as hard as that might be to get
Okay so Absolute Truth questions:
A yes or no question: Is there a God?
There cannot be a maybe to this.
What defines a fact?
What defines an opinion?
And I have no idea, what does wadr mean?
Annnnnnddddd, when we aaaaallllll see Jesus, we'll sing and SHOUT the victory!!!!!!!!! ^-^
None of your multiple topic rant has anything to do with your abuse of the term "Holy Tradition". You got caught in a lie so what do you do? Deny, deny, deny every word of my explanation. The Primacy of Peter is just an escape, a rabbit trail. Not understanding is one thing, refusing to understand and re-asserting a lie is something else.
Peter's location has no bearing whatsoever on the doctrine of the papacy.
Peter's primacy does not rest on one verse. (Matthew 16:18) I don't even need it. I have about 70 verses indicating Peter's primacy, which is more denial on your part. https://www.scripturecatholic.com/the-primacy-of-peter/. You can't find any of them.
Also, conveniently located on one page are quotes from the writings of the earliest Christians, from 95 AD through to 440 A.D., over 70 as well. Many of these men were there when books of Bible were being discerned, but that's pointless because you deny the canonical process. The reformers attack on the papacy had more to do with politics and propaganda than it it did with biblical truth.
To make matters worse, you have nothing to do with the Early Church Fathers because none of them were fist shaking rebels.
So it is with the flesh, but at 74 I feel blessed because I can still do many things I enjoy in spite of necessarily slower pace. I used to love to play tennis. I wish I still could. I could hit the ball I am sure, but I would get out of breath walking slowly across the court. It's OK! Give God the glory!
Even so! Of the many pastors I have had over the years, looking back there is only one that I am certain was called by God as a minister and he missed a lot of steps. The ones who never had the calling they took are another thing altogether. I am glad that I don't have to judge them. God has led me on, but the pain and damage done to many who submitted themselves sincerely would a heavy burden if they ever understood that it was theirs to carry.
Last edited:
I am 73. I have had a stroke, one knee replaced, lost the tip of one thumb, and they tell me I will be effectively blind in about two years. (My computer is set to a "ZOOM" of 150% for everything.)
But, my wife and I both hit the "Y" three times a week. They have classes there that really help.
Harvest 1874
Well-Known Member
It is a common saying that “the Bible is an old fiddle upon which any tune can be played”–a Catholic tune, a Baptist tune, a Presbyterian tune, or any tune the player may desire. However in contrast to what the various creeds of men teach, when properly examined, the Bible can be used to play only one harmonious tune. This however requires diligent study and a willingness to let go of any preconceived ideas we may have had on a given subject when it is clearly made evident that our views are not in complete harmony with the whole of the divine testimony.
For example most professed Christians are of the belief that a mere profession of faith is all that is required to insure a heavenly inheritance, that at the very moment confession is made they receive the Holy Spirit and are begotten again to a new nature. However a thorough examination of the whole of the divine testimony upon the subject contradicts this theory.
Thus it is the blind continue to follow the blind, putting too much faith in their ministers and church organizations rather than in the Word of God itself. Many such will be found amongst those saying, ‘Lord, Lord open to us’, and he will say to such, go away I don’t know you.” (Matt 25:11, 12)
“The door is shut, you chose not to enter in at the “acceptable time”, and in the acceptable manner which I outlined in my word, but rather you chose to heed the word of the blind guides who knew not the way, who themselves entered not and hindered all who would enter to enter. Therefore you received this grace (this special favor or opportunity) in vain. Thus, I know you not, that is not as a part of this special class called to a heavenly inheritance and to share in my kingdom glory and throne. Instead you will take your place amongst the remainder of the world who will be given ample opportunity to share in the earthly phase of my kingdom.’ (See Matt 25:10; 2 Cor 6:1, 2; Luke 11:52)
Last edited:
Yes, as I said most people believe, "The only correct way to interpret the Bible is the way I have."
H. Richard
Well-Known Member
***
Many claim that it was their organization that gave us the Bible. But I disagree. The Holy Spirit gave us the Bible. To think that God could not give us His words is saying that God does not exist or is powerless to control the things of this world.
Similar threads
