Why water into wine?

[Peanut]

Sorry, but NONE of the verses you cited tell us that the Scriptures are our SOLE authority.

When Jesus went on his dry fast into the wilderness and was there tempted by the adversary of his Father, Satan, Jesus rebutted every attempt of Satan to tempt Christ by using the scriptures as authority.
It is written.

Matthew 4:1-11
4 Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.

2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred.

3 And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.

4 But 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.

5 Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,

6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.

7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

9 And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.

10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

11 Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him.

King James Version (KJV)
Public Domain

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

 

[BreadOfLife]

When Jesus went on his dry fast into the wilderness and was there tempted by the adversary of his Father, Satan, Jesus rebutted every attempt of Satan to tempt Christ by using the scriptures as authority.
It is written.

Matthew 4:1-11
4 Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.

2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred.

3 And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.

4 But 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.

5 Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,

6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.

7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

9 And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.

10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

11 Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him.

King James Version (KJV)
Public Domain

Nice try - but no cigar . . .

Why did Jesus use Scripture to rebuke Satan??
Because Satan was using Scripture to tempt Jesus.

Jesus and the NT writers also defer to 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 the 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 the 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. 10:4 - Paul relies on the ORAL TRADITION of the rock following Moses. It is not recorded in the Old Testament.

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 the 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.

Face it - NOWHERE does the Bible say that the Bible is our sole Authority.
As I have amply shown, however, it DOES say that the Church is our final Authority on earth (Matt. 16:18-19, Matt. 18:15-18, Luke 10:16, John 16:121-15, John 20:21-23).

 

[BreadOfLife]

Opponents of Sola Scriptura thanks to the Council of Trent's determination. Let their decision be anathema. A body that manifest "indulgences" in order for the Roman faithful to buy their loved one's souls out of a fictional creation called purgatory. How is it Protestants defend the truth of God in Christ against a facade of man , idols, and papal authority? A false church is a false church. And God is not mocked.

[Sic]SUMMARY EVALUATION OF THE COUNCIL

What evaluation can be given to the Council of Trent after eighteen years of meeting?

First, and foremost, it rejected the Protestant Reformation. While the initial impetus for the Reformation was the Indulgence Controversy, it quickly became apparent that the Reformers desired a thorough doctrinal reformation of the Church. They put forth the five great themes of sola scriptura, sola fide, solus Christus, sola gratia, and soli Deo Gloria. These five phrases encapsulate the Gospel: salvation is revealed in the Scriptures alone, purchased by Christ alone, received by faith alone, offered by grace alone, and is to the glory of God alone. This understanding of the Gospel was rejected by Rome. In its place was substituted a Gospel that was provided by the Church alone, mediated by the sacraments alone, and based on the authority of an enlarged canon: Scripture and tradition. What was lost at the Council of Trent was the Gospel of grace itself. No matter how the canons were framed, it made the individual dependent upon the Church for the knowledge and receiving of the Gospel that he so desperately needed.

And of the 5 "Solas" - only two of them are heretical:
Sola Scriptura
The Bible never makes this claim anywhere in Scripture.

Sola Fide
The ONLY place you'll find the phrase "faith alone" in Scripture is where James says:
James 2:24
You see that a man is justified by works, and NOT BY faith alone.

Talk about the "doctrines of men" . . .

The other 3 "Solas" were taught to the Protestants by the Catholic Church for some 1500 years PRIOR to the Protestant Revolt.

 

[Peanut]

Nice try - but no cigar . . .

I did not try anything. I posted rebuttal to your remarks. Are you able to speak without sarcasm?

Why did Jesus use Scripture to rebuke Satan??
Because Satan was using Scripture to tempt Jesus.

No he didn't.

 

[Wormwood]

The problem with this view is that Scripture itself never makes this claim about itself.
As I showed - it makes this claim about the Church (Matt. 16:18-19, Matt. 18:15-18, Luke 10:16, John 16:12-15, John 20:21-23).

Furthermore - if these verses DON'T point to the Church - then why did the Early Church Fathers say that they DID??

For example - why do we read in The Didache (Teachings of the Twelve Apostles), a document written while the Apostles were still alive, say that we must confess our sins to the Church as prescribed in John 20:21-23?
This is what the Early Church - some of whom knew the Apostles had to say on the matter of Church Authority:

Scripture doesn't have to claim itself as a "final" authority. It is understood. When we read, "Thus says the Lord..." the authority is implied...and it is final. When we read that all Scripture is breathed out by God, the "final" authority is implied. God is the final authority...dont you agree?

The only authority the NT speaks about in regards to the church is dealing with immoral behavior among local congregants by the local leadership. It says nothing about establishing hierarchies, which see is superior and so forth. These things were developed after the NT was written....some for good, pragmatic reasons Imo, but I don't believe it was ever meant to be set up as of equal authority of the Scriptures and the sole interpretive voice of the Word of God. Of course, that is my opinion as a Protestant, but either way, you are greatly overstating your case.

I agree we should confess our sins. The book of James also tells us to confess our sins to one another. I guess I don't see your point here. I am not opposed to church history and early church documents. I think they are helpful and give great insight into a lot of things. So also the early church fathers. However, the early writers did not always agree with each other, so we need to be cautious we don't just pick the stuff that matches our own views.

Moreover, I have noticed a lot of these quotes from early church writers are used out of context when attempting to prove certain doctrines. The issues we have now are not the same they had then, so we need to be careful about reading into their writing our own issues rather than theirs.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Scripture doesn't have to claim itself as a "final" authority. It is understood. When we read, "Thus says the Lord..." the authority is implied...and it is final. When we read that all Scripture is breathed out by God, the "final" authority is implied. God is the final authority...dont you agree?

The only authority the NT speaks about in regards to the church is dealing with immoral behavior among local congregants by the local leadership. It says nothing about establishing hierarchies, which see is superior and so forth. These things were developed after the NT was written....some for good, pragmatic reasons Imo, but I don't believe it was ever meant to be set up as of equal authority of the Scriptures and the sole interpretive voice of the Word of God. Of course, that is my opinion as a Protestant, but either way, you are greatly overstating your case.

I agree we should confess our sins. The book of James also tells us to confess our sins to one another. I guess I don't see your point here. I am not opposed to church history and early church documents. I think they are helpful and give great insight into a lot of things. So also the early church fathers. However, the early writers did not always agree with each other, so we need to be cautious we don't just pick the stuff that matches our own views.

Moreover, I have noticed a lot of these quotes from early church writers are used out of context when attempting to prove certain doctrines. The issues we have now are not the same they had then, so we need to be careful about reading into their writing our own issues rather than theirs.

First of all - God IS the final Authority.
When we read in His Word that the Church has authority over those on earth as His representative - we must take that seriously. The Church doesn't usurp the Authority of Scripture - it works in concert with it. The Church is the final earthly Authority because the Word says it is.

Without a final Authority, you have what we have in Protestantism: Tens of thousands of disjointed and perpetually-splintering groups - ALL teaching different doctrines and ALL claiming to have the "Truth."
Can you tell me from Scripture alone - which one of these denominations is right?

As to confessing our sins to the Church - Jesus set it up that way - not men.
Three times in the Gospels (Matt. 16:19, 18:18 and John 20:23), we read where Jesus gave the Apostles the power to forgive sins or to hold them bound. This is not a something that Jesus took lightly. In John 20:21-23, Jesus (who is God) breathes on the Apostles as he is giving them this power:
(Jesus) said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you."
And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained."

The fact that Jesus breathed on the Apostles when entrusted them with this ministry is highly significant because he doesn’t do this anywhere else in the New Testament. In fact, there are only two times in ALL of Scripture where God breathes on man:

The first is when he breathed life into Adam.
The second is here in John’s Gospel when he is giving them the power to forgive or retain sins.

St. Paul makes no small case for this ministry of reconciliation clearly in 2 Cor. 5:18-20:

“And all this is from God, who has reconciled us to himself through Christ and given us the ministry of reconciliation, namely, God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting their trespasses against them and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. So we are ambassadors for Christ, as if God were appealing through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.”

In 2 Cor. 2:10, he states, “Whomever you forgive anything, so do I. For indeed what I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for you in the presence of Christ.”

In the Greek, the word “presence” in this phrase is Prosopone, which means Person. In the PERSON of Christ is a more correct translation. Paul was indicating that they were forgiving sins in the PERSON of Christ, which is translated into Latin as In Persona Christi.

This is what the Early Church Fathers unanimously taught. This wasn't something that was argued about and debated. Some of the quotes I presented from them allude to John 20:21-23 and Matt. 16:18 when speaking of Church Authority.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I did not try anything. I posted rebuttal to your remarks. Are you able to speak without sarcasm?

Yes you did.

You tried again to prove Sola Scriptura from Scripture - and it just doesn't work.
This is a tradition of MEN and nothing more . . .

No he didn't.

Matt. 4:5-6
Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. “If you are the Son of God,” he said, “throw yourself down. For IT IS WRITTEN:

“‘He will command his angels concerning you,
and they will lift you up in their hands,
so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’”

 

[epostle1]

Scripture doesn't have to claim itself as a "final" authority. It is understood. When we read, "Thus says the Lord..." the authority is implied...and it is final. When we read that all Scripture is breathed out by God, the "final" authority is implied. God is the final authority...dont you agree?

We agree with the material sufficiency of Scripture, as did all the Church Fathers. So it's easy to mistake a few of them as sola scripturists when they upheld the authority of Scripture.

The difference here is between a blueprint to make a building, and the bricks of which the building is made. A merely materially sufficient Scripture is like a pile of bricks that can build anything from a cathedral to a tool shed, but the bricks themselves possess no inherent intelligibility (formal sufficiency) in one direction for another. The intelligibility derives from outside the bricks. Conversely, a blueprint is inherently intelligible, and thus has not material but formal sufficiency to create a specific building, whether cathedral or tool shed.

In terms of development, the claim that Scripture is materially sufficient presumes that the intelligibility of revelation derives from elsewhere than Scripture itself. A definitive magisterium (or external tradition) is necessary to decide what to do with the bricks. Without the magisterium it is impossible to know whether the bricks were intended to be a cathedral or a tool shed.The distinction here makes all the difference in the world. From a Protestant point of view, anything less than formal sufficiency is unacceptable and will render Sola Scriptura impossible. On the flip side, the Catholic has no problem affirming the material sufficiency of Scripture (i.e. all necessary information is at least implicit in Scripture), since it in no way rules out the need for a Magisterium - and indeed demands one!

This is important to keep in mind because it makes the Protestant task of proving Sola Scriptura from the Bible more difficult and uncomfortable. It is not enough for the Protestant to point to a text that says how good or useful or inspired Scripture is, since the material sufficiency gladly embraces all this. The Protestant must show that Scripture formally and clearly lays out Christian teaching in such a way that no Magisterium or Tradition is needed, and in fact must show that the Magisterium and Tradition don't exist in the first place (or wont exist at some future date). NICK'S CATHOLIC BLOG: Sola Scriptura: Formal versus Material Sufficiency​

The only authority the NT speaks about in regards to the church is dealing with immoral behavior among local congregants by the local leadership. It says nothing about establishing hierarchies, which see is superior and so forth. These things were developed after the NT was written....some for good, pragmatic reasons Imo, but I don't believe it was ever meant to be set up as of equal authority of the Scriptures and the sole interpretive voice of the Word of God. Of course, that is my opinion as a Protestant, but either way, you are greatly overstating your case.

The 3 fold episcopate, bishop, priest, and deacon had authority and it is quite biblical. The elders at the Council of Jerusalem had shared authority with the Apostles. "equal authority with the Scriptures" is a misunderstanding of the relationship between Scripture and the Church. Being the sole interpreter of Scripture does not mean no one else can interpret it. It means there has to be an authority to refute heretics using "Bible alone" to prove their false teaching. Arius, Nestorius, Appolinarius and legions of other heretics in the history of the world were sola scripturists. God didn't say,"here is a book, you're on your own." There is a harmony between Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium, and one is not over the other.

I agree we should confess our sins. The book of James also tells us to confess our sins to one another.

In the context of James 5, "one to another" means one to a priest, it doesn't mean confess your sins to Mrs. Blabbermouth. But confession according to the Bible is impossible without validly ordained priests.

I guess I don't see your point here. I am not opposed to church history and early church documents. I think they are helpful and give great insight into a lot of things. So also the early church fathers. However, the early writers did not always agree with each other, so we need to be cautious we don't just pick the stuff that matches our own views.
Moreover, I have noticed a lot of these quotes from early church writers are used out of context when attempting to prove certain doctrines. The issues we have now are not the same they had then, so we need to be careful about reading into their writing our own issues rather than theirs.

It doesn't matter that the Church Fathers didn't always agree, it's their general consensus that matters, and what the Magisterium ruled on. We don't treat the ECF as inspired, but indicators of what the early Church believed. They had no Bible as we know it for 4 centuries, but relied on authentic Apostolic Teaching retained in apostolic succession.

Without the authority of the Magisterium (all bishops in union with the Pope) you would have no Scripture. The authority had to be some where. The Canon of the Bible is what came out of councils after the Apostles were dead for 300 years. That's why sola scriptura is contradictory and self defeating.

The Church never "decided" inspiration, they were already inspired. What she decided was which books claiming Bible status had failed to measure up against authentic Apostolic Teaching.

"The Infant Church"
The fake books failed. How did they measure up against the written Word of God to make these discernments while the canon of the Bible wasn't fully realized until 397 AD??? Who were these men that were utilized in this monumentous process??? Do you trust them?

 

[Peanut]

And of the 5 "Solas" - only two of them are heretical:
Sola Scriptura
The Bible never makes this claim anywhere in Scripture.

Sola Fide
The ONLY place you'll find the phrase "faith alone" in Scripture is where James says:
James 2:24
You see that a man is justified by works, and NOT BY faith alone.

Talk about the "doctrines of men" . . .

The other 3 "Solas" were taught to the Protestants by the Catholic Church for some 1500 years PRIOR to the Protestant Revolt.

The convening of the council of Trent in its entirety of scope culminated in decrees that were entirely the doctrine of men.

• Source

The Number of Anathemas in the Text of the Council of Trent

CT table

Edited and translated by J. Waterworth (London: Dolman, 1848)

Scanned by Hanover College students in 1995.

anathema Function: noun Etymology: Late Latin anathemat-, anathema, from Greek, thing devoted to evil, curse, from anatithenai to set up, dedicate, from ana- + tithenai to place, set 1 a: one that is cursed by ecclesiastical authority b: someone or something intensely disliked or loathed 2 a: a ban or curse solemnly pronounced by ecclesiastical authority and accompanied by excommunication b: the denunciation of something as accursed c: a vigorous denunciation 3: a person or thing accursed or consigned to damnation or destruction.

The Council of Trent's findings have never been revoked. They were confirmed by the 2nd Vatican council. And the official catechism of the RCC. 1992.

Yes you did.

You tried again to prove Sola Scriptura from Scripture - and it just doesn't work.
This is a tradition of MEN and nothing more . . .

Matt. 4:5-6
Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. “If you are the Son of God,” he said, “throw yourself down. For IT IS WRITTEN:

“‘He will command his angels concerning you,
and they will lift you up in their hands,
so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’”

As I said, Satan did not quote scripture in that instance. Because that scripture had no relevance to the Christ whom Satan challenged with those words.

 

[Wormwood]

The Protestant must show that Scripture formally and clearly lays out Christian teaching in such a way that no Magisterium or Tradition is needed

I disagree with this statement. Protestants do see the importance of tradition and the teaching of church leaders both now and in the past. The difference is that they believe that it is possible for church leaders and tradition to lose sight of the Scriptures and the Bible always acts as guardrails. It alone is infallible. There is no Scripture that teaches the infallibility of Magisterium. We see both the High Priest in the NT in error as well as Peter, himself, in error in the way he dealt with Gentiles for a period. Again, Protestants do value tradition and would never say it is not needed. We just do not see it as an equivalent authority as the Word of God.

A definitive magisterium (or external tradition) is necessary to decide what to do with the bricks. Without the magisterium it is impossible to know whether the bricks were intended to be a cathedral or a tool shed.

Yes, I agree that Protestants would disagree with the notion that the Scripture are a pile of bricks that need magisterium to decode the blueprint of what is ultimately intended.

The 3 fold episcopate, bishop, priest, and deacon had authority and it is quite biblical. The elders at the Council of Jerusalem had shared authority with the Apostles. "equal authority with the Scriptures" is a misunderstanding of the relationship between Scripture and the Church. Being the sole interpreter of Scripture does not mean no one else can interpret it. It means there has to be an authority to refute heretics using "Bible alone" to prove their false teaching.

Again, I would disagree here. The way to ensure accuracy of understanding the Scriptures is not simply to appoint infallible interpretation to one or a few people. The Scriptures are comprehendible and while limiting those who have a voice in interpreting them does limit variance, it does not prove accuracy. The Jewish ruling council was the authority among the Jews and they clearly misinterpreted and misapplied many passages. So while Jesus did respect their position, he did not equate their position with a divine mandate that their declarations were accurate.

As I see it, this is equal authority with the Bible because that person or groups interpretation is mandated to be correct by virtue of their office and thus their declaration becomes the declaration of Christ.

In the context of James 5, "one to another" means one to a priest, it doesn't mean confess your sins to Mrs. Blabbermouth. But confession according to the Bible is impossible without validly ordained priests.

I never said as much. Although I am sure we would differ on our views on what the Scriptures teach about what constitutes a "validly ordained" church leader.

It doesn't matter that the Church Fathers didn't always agree, it's their general consensus that matters, and what the Magisterium ruled on. We don't treat the ECF as inspired, but indicators of what the early Church believed. They had no Bible as we know it for 4 centuries, but relied on authentic Apostolic Teaching retained in apostolic succession.

Well, 1) it does matter because it shows that there were varying options among leaders in the early church on debatable matters that weren't settled by an ultimate voice of the Church on doctrine. 2) Yes there was general consensus and it does matter that groups of church leaders got together to set official positions regarding what the Apostles taught and false teachings introduced by heretical groups. Most Protestants accept these councils and affirm them. However, they affirm them because they represent accuracy in their representation of the NT (as they should because these were disciples of the Apostles or their followers). I understand there are some people on here that post as if their voice alone is the authority and their own interpretation, void of any understanding or grasp of historical Christian doctrine is all that matters. This is not how most of Protestantism approaches history and church authority. I am sure you understand that but just want to clarify.

Finally, I think your meme is a straw man. That is not what Protestants believe or reflective of our fundamental beliefs about the Church or Scripture. I know you guys get very upset when your views are caricatured. Im not upset at it, but just saying, this is the kind of stuff that creates this tit-for-tat belittling that is commonplace here recently.

 

[bbyrd009]

it is pointless to attempt to reconcile Catholicism and Protestantism doctrinally

It's the Cannibal Cult!

and imo such a stark example, literally directions, for not taking Scripture literally. When Jesus does not proceed to hack off an arm after saying "take, eat..." at the Last Supper, and fill a goblet with blood for them to drink, a statement is being made

 

[bbyrd009]

The convening of the council of Trent in its entirety of scope culminated in decrees that were entirely the doctrine of men.

a complete heresy. didn't it have to be re-convened like twice? it split the est'd church

 

[Marymog]

ha well that is hardly your fault, i doubt i could make any sense of it now myself lol. But i guess i was trying to kind of respond to "Scripture and Christian History are Truth and fact" with something similar to "history is written by the winners." And we were raised by the "winners," so to speak. Paul was very clear that "the wolves" would assume control of Christianity, "as soon as he left," and so that seems to deserve some reflection also, vis a vis "Christian history." Finally, i think it is important to understand that no one can state one, single, uncontested "truth" from Scripture, and i am convinced that that is not accidental, even if it is fantastic on its face.

But you would have to suspend the beliefs that you currently have, about truth being some absolute thing; and also that "facts" have much of anything to do with absolute truth--which is another pretty hard, i guess maybe impossible, thing for someone raised to think logically to even entertain.

I would have to suspend the belief that TRUTH is an absolute thing? If truth is not an absolute thing then what is absolute for YOU?

FACTS have much of anything to do with absolute truth? What a bizarre statement.

Paul said that wolves would assume control of Christianity as soon as he left? Are you serious or are you ignorant of scripture? Please quote the verse you are referencing.

Mary

 

[Marymog]

So denegrating,

1Co_2:10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

But men are carnal

Luk_12:28 If then God so clothe the grass, which is to day in the field, and to morrow is cast into the oven; how much more will he clothe you, O ye of little faith?

So little faith so much religion.

You make absolutely ZERO sense. The scripture you quoted has NOTHING to do with the subject at hand.

Mary

 

[BreadOfLife]

The convening of the council of Trent in its entirety of scope culminated in decrees that were entirely the doctrine of men.

anathema Function: noun Etymology: Late Latin anathemat-, anathema, from Greek, thing devoted to evil, curse, from anatithenai to set up, dedicate, from ana- + tithenai to place, set 1 a: one that is cursed by ecclesiastical authority b: someone or something intensely disliked or loathed 2 a: a ban or curse solemnly pronounced by ecclesiastical authority and accompanied by excommunication b: the denunciation of something as accursed c: a vigorous denunciation 3: a person or thing accursed or consigned to damnation or destruction.

The Council of Trent's findings have never been revoked. They were confirmed by the 2nd Vatican council. And the official catechism of the RCC. 1992.

An Anathema is an de facto excommunication.
In other words - they ONLY apply to CATHOLICS - like the original heretics Luther, Calvin, Zwingili, et al.

These anathemas do not an cannot apply to Protestants like yourself - unless you are an ex-Catholic.
Paul not only spoke of excommunication in certain cases - he recommended it (1 Cor. 5:1-5, 1 Tim. 1:20).

As I said, Satan did not quote scripture in that instance. Because that scripture had no relevance to the Christ whom Satan challenged with those words.

Why would you lie about this??
Here is right from Scripture. Satan quoted Scripture while tempting Jesus:

Matt. 4:5
Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. “If you are the Son of God,” he said, “throw yourself down. FOR IT IS WRITTEN:

“‘He will command his angels concerning you,
and they will lift you up in their hands,
so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.

 

[bbyrd009]

I would have to suspend the belief that TRUTH is an absolute thing?

at least as truth relates to the material plane, yes. Iow the only valid definition of "absolute truth" is likely "God," and any conditions we might put on that, even such as "the truth of the matter is...," are suddenly open for debate, and truth is revealed only in between two perspectives, my post here, and your rebuttal for instance. Neither one can be dismissed.

All "truth" that we can know is subjective truth
at least if you accept that one can only 'know of' God

which someone might even dispute

etc

 

[bbyrd009]

If truth is not an absolute thing then what is absolute for YOU?

God

 

[bbyrd009]

FACTS have much of anything to do with absolute truth? What a bizarre statement.

i know, huh! it's actually mind bending.

you cannot state a single absolute truth, from Scripture or otherwise.
Try it and see.
"Facts" are just our way of borrowing "truth," and may just as easily be used to manufacture lies

 

[bbyrd009]

Paul said that wolves would assume control of Christianity as soon as he left? Are you serious or are you ignorant of scripture? Please quote the verse you are referencing.

you may search ""the wolves will come in" NT, we have discussed it plenty, Acts...like 20. 20:30?

 

[Marymog]

you may search ""the wolves will come in" NT, we have discussed it plenty, Acts...like 20. 20:30?

Dear sir,

You answered my question. You are ignorant of scripture. It does NOT say that the wolves will assume control of Christianity. It says that "men will rise up and distort the truth to draw away disciples after them".

My prayers are with you....Mary