Mishael

It was merely written to help later generations understand, it doesn't mean we go by Sola Scriptura.

Is even quoting from a RCC website in violation of this Protestant dominated forums. The early Christians had no New Testament to which they could appeal; they learned from oral, rather than written, instruction. Until relatively recent times, the Bible was inaccessible to most people, either because they could not read or because the printing press had not been invented. All these people learned from oral instruction, passed down, generation to generation, by the Church. Most theology and understanding of the faith is not derived solely from the Bible either, infact the sole use of the Bible is so we can be helped to believe Jesus is the Messiah.

Trinity is described in the Bible, but the concept of Sola Scriptura is made up. "Word" in Holy Scripture often refers to a proclaimed, oral teaching of prophets or apostles. What the prophets spoke was the word of God regardless of whether or not their utterances were recorded later as written Scripture. So for example, we read in Jeremiah: "For twenty-three years . . . the word of the Lord has come to me and I have spoken to you again and again . . . ‘But you did not listen to me,’ declares the Lord. . . . Therefore the Lord Almighty says this: ‘Because you have not listened to my words. . . .’" (Jer. 25:3, 7-8 [NIV]). This was the word of God even though some of it was not recorded in writing. It had equal authority as writing or proclamation-never-reduced-to-writing. This was true also of apostolic preaching. When the phrases "word of God" or "word of the Lord" appear in Acts and the epistles, they almost always refer to oral preaching, not to Scripture. For example: "When you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God" (1 Thess. 2:13). If we compare this passage with another, written to the same church, Paul appears to regard oral teaching and the word of God as synonymous: "Keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us" (2 Thess. 3:6). Protestants often quote the verses in the Bible where corrupt traditions of men are condemned (e.g., Matt. 15:2–6; Mark 7:8–13; Col. 2:8). Of course, Catholics agree with this. But it’s not the whole truth. True, apostolic Tradition also is endorsed positively. This Tradition is in total harmony with and consistent with Scripture. Protestants defending sola scriptura will claim that Jesus and Paul accepted the authority of the Old Testament. This is true, but they also appealed to other authority outside of written revelation. For example: a. The reference to "He shall be called a Nazarene" cannot be found in the Old Testament, yet it was "spoken by the prophets" (Matt. 2:23). Therefore, this prophecy, which is considered to be "God’s word," was passed down orally rather than through Scripture. b. In Matthew 23:2–3, Jesus teaches that the scribes and Pharisees have a legitimate, binding authority based "on Moses’ seat," but this phrase or idea cannot be found anywhere in the Old Testament. It is found in the (originally oral) Mishnah, which teaches a sort of "teaching succession" from Moses on down. c. In 1 Corinthians 10:4, Paul refers to a rock that "followed" the Jews through the Sinai wilderness. The Old Testament says nothing about such miraculous movement. But rabbinic tradition does. d. "As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses" (2 Tim. 3:8). These two men cannot be found in the related Old Testament passage (Ex. 7:8ff.) or anywhere else in the Old Testament. In the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:6–30), we see Peter and James speaking with authority. This Council makes an authoritative pronouncement (citing the Holy Spirit) that was binding on all Christians: "For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity" (Acts 15:28–29). In the next chapter, we read that Paul, Timothy, and Silas were traveling around "through the cities," and Scripture says that "they delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem" (Acts 16:4). Christianity was derived in many ways from the Pharisaical tradition of Judaism. The Sadducees, on the other hand, rejected the future resurrection of the soul, the afterlife, rewards and retribution, demons and angels, and predestinarianism. The Sadducees also rejected all authoritative oral teaching and essentially believed in sola scriptura. They were the theological liberals of that time. Christian Pharisees are referred to in Acts 15:5 and Philippians 3:5, but the Bible never mentions Christian Sadducees. The Pharisees, despite their corruptions and excesses, were the mainstream Jewish tradition, and both Jesus and Paul acknowledge this. So neither the orthodox Old Testament Jews nor the early Church was guided by the principle of sola scriptura. Neither did the ancient Israelites and Jews believe in Sola Scriptura to give two examples from the Old Testament itself: a. Ezra, a priest and scribe, studied the Jewish law and taught it to Israel, and his authority was binding under pain of imprisonment, banishment, loss of goods, and even death (cf. Ezra 7:26). b. In Nehemiah 8:3, Ezra reads the Law of Moses to the people in Jerusalem. In verse 7 we find thirteen Levites who assisted Ezra and helped the people to understand the law. Much earlier, we find Levites exercising the same function (cf. 2 Chr. 17:8–9). So the people did indeed understand the law (cf. Neh. 8:8, 12), but not without much assistance—not merely upon hearing. Likewise, the Bible is not altogether clear in and of itself but requires the aid of teachers who are more familiar with biblical styles and Hebrew idiom, background, context, exegesis and cross-reference, hermeneutical principles, original languages, etc. The Old Testament, then, teaches about a binding Tradition and need for authoritative interpreters, as does the New Testament (cf. Mark 4:33–34; Acts 8:30–31; 2 Pet. 1:20; 3:16). Ephesians 4 refutes Sola Scriptura as well: "All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work" (2 Tim. 3:16–17). This passage doesn’t teach formal sufficiency, which excludes a binding, authoritative role for Tradition and Church. Protestants extrapolate onto the text what isn’t there. If we look at the overall context of this passage, we can see that Paul makes reference to oral Tradition three times (cf. 2 Tim. 1:13–14; 2:2; 3:14). And to use an analogy, let’s examine a similar passage: "And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ" (Eph. 4:11–15). If 2 Timothy 3 proves the sole sufficiency of Scripture, then, by analogy, Ephesians 4 would likewise prove the sufficiency of pastors and teachers for the attainment of Christian perfection. In Ephesians 4, the Christian believer is equipped, built up, brought into unity and mature manhood, and even preserved from doctrinal confusion by means of the teaching function of the Church. This is a far stronger statement of the perfecting of the saints than 2 Timothy 3, yet it does not even mention Scripture. So if all non-scriptural elements are excluded in 2 Timothy, then, by analogy, Scripture would logically have to be excluded in Ephesians. It is far more reasonable to recognize that the absence of one or more elements in one passage does not mean that they are nonexistent. The Church and Scripture are both equally necessary and important for teaching. If Paul wasn’t assuming that, he would have been commanding his followers to adhere to a mistaken doctrine. He writes: "If any one refuses to obey what we say in this letter, note that man, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed" (2 Thess. 3:14). "Take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them" (Rom. 16:17). He didn’t write about "the pretty-much, mostly, largely true but not infallible doctrine which you have been taught." So you can clearly see the concept of Sola Scriptura refutes itself, when all is said and done, Protestants who accept sola scriptura as their rule of faith appeal to the Bible. If they are asked why one should believe in their particular denominational teaching rather than another, each will appeal to "the Bible’s clear teaching." Often they act as if they have no tradition that guides their own interpretation. This is similar to people on two sides of a constitutional debate both saying, "Well, we go by what the Constitution says, whereas you guys don’t." The U.S. Constitution, like the Bible, is not sufficient in and of itself to resolve differing interpretations. Judges and courts are necessary, and their decrees are legally binding. Supreme Court rulings cannot be overturned except by a future ruling or constitutional amendment. In any event, there is always a final appeal that settles the matter. But Protestantism lacks this because it appeals to a logically self-defeating principle and a book that must be interpreted by human beings. Obviously, given the divisions in Protestantism, simply "going to the Bible" hasn’t worked. In the end, a person has no assurance or certainty in the Protestant system. They can only "go to the Bible" themselves and perhaps come up with another doctrinal version of some disputed doctrine to add to the list. One either believes there is one truth in any given theological dispute (whatever it is) or adopts a relativist or indifferentist position, where contradictions are fine or the doctrine is so "minor" that differences "don’t matter." But the Bible doesn’t teach that whole categories of doctrines are "minor" and that Christians freely and joyfully can disagree in such a fashion. Denominationalism and divisions are vigorously condemned. The only conclusion we can reach from the Bible is what we call the "three-legged stool": Bible, Church, and Tradition are all necessary to arrive at truth. If you knock out any leg of a three-legged stool, it collapses.

Veneration isn't worship, https://www.catholic.com/tract/praying-to-the-saints prayer to saints is Biblical so is prayer to Mary It is you who claim to know Jesus yet arrogantly claim to spout truth. Note: Videos deleted by Omegaman 3.0 Videos are only allowed in the video section. Now that you know this Mishael, be forewarned that doing so again, will get you banned from threads where this rule is violated.

An idol is something worshipped as divine under the mistaken belief that it contains something divine or is itself God. An icon is an image that reminds us of good people and events, sometimes viewed during prayer. Some particular images have sentimental value within a culture, and a rich history.

Worship is to acknowledge something as a deity and adore it as such, veneration (if you knew English) is to give something great respect it is distinct to giving worship and adoration. The ark of the covenant was venerated so we're the images or statues that God commanded to be made they were never worshipped. The Bible says not to make graven images for worship and replace God with them. An icon isn't a graven image, as you said the brass snake was to demonstrate the power of God it's the same with icons for us, its is a reminder of the power of Jesus Christ. We don't believe the icon of itself is of divine power or can save us, it is just a way to revere the person depicted in it. The issue of iconoclasm was dealt with during the 8th and 9th centuries. The culmination of this struggle was the declaration of faith by the Seventh Ecumenical Council so I'd advise you to read about it before making claims.

The Temple Jesus prayed in had images in it so was he an idolater? The ancient Israelites bowed to the Ark of the covenant. I'm not a Catholic so I don't really care if they removed the second commandment or not this not my problem so you should take it up with them.

How does 33,000 denominations make it any better the word Sola Scriptura was never used in history by Christians up until the Protestant reformation neither does the Bible claim to be the sole authority anywhere.

You think Jesus was speaking to Pontus Pilate, a Roman governor, in Aramaic? Any historian would laugh at that. Jesus lived during the time when Hellenization was taking over, ever since the Hellenistic era when the Greeks started to settle in the Mediterranean and colonise it when the conquests of Alexander happened. Greek at the time of Jesus had become the language of the Mediterranean like Englisn is the language of the world today. Greek was the language of the Mediterranean at the time and no matter where you go Anatolia or Egypt despite different native language there was always Greek so this is the reason the Bible was originally written in Greek not Aramaic because not all people in the Mediterranean spoke Aramaic but Greek was spoken as English is today, which is why the Bible was written in Greek so that all people could understand it. Jesus also spoke Greek as he managed to communicate with Pontus Pilate and a Roman Centurion so he couldn't have been speaking Aramaic since Romans never learned the languages of people they deemed barbarians(which is everyone Non Roman). Also we Syriac Christians and Assyrians have an Aramaic translations from the original Greek version of the Bible in the language of Jesus Christ so you or any islamic scholar is free to inspect our Bibles in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, or Israel.

So you shall not make an image in order to bow down to them. But, for what purpose? We have already seen that bowing was context sensitive, and we know that the Israelites had many images in their temple. It specifically says that you shall not bow down in order to serve them, that is, over and above God. It is because this would take the place of God that God indicates that He is a jealous God who will not have other gods before Him, as He clearly states in the first commandment. So, for the veneration of images to violate the second commandment, it would have to: 1. Be an image of some type, 2. We would have to bow to it, 3. We would bow to it in order to serve it, 4. And to serve it as a god, to supersede God. Thus, it would turn into worship and break the second commandment. Veneration of the Saints through their images only applies to 2 of the 4 qualifications, thus it is not worship of the Saint or the Icon, nor does it break the second commandment. It seems the real concern of those who hesitate at this point is that they are afraid that if they bow to an Icon and kiss it, that they might find themselves someday falling into worship rather than just veneration and honor. Like one day they would wake up and realize that all this time they had been worshiping Mary instead of just giving her honor. The truth of the matter is that you simply cannot accidently worship an Icon. Worship is intentionally giving veneration to a god. As long as that god is the God, then you have nothing to worry about. No one can accidentally worship a Saint. Worship is a purposefull activity and you do it on purpose and with intent. Let's take the Protestant problem of Bibliolatry for instance. Some Protestant groups and people have been charged with worshiping the Bible. In some of the cases, that may actually be true, I don't know. But in most cases, if you were to ask such people who seemed to come across that way whether they believed that the Bible was a god or not, they would naturally tell you no. So strictly speaking, such people would not be worshiping the Bible even if they placed undue attention and emphasis on it to the point of seeming to go overboard. Rather, they say they would hold the Bible in such high esteem because it is through the Bible that they know who God is, who Christ is, and the whole revelation of God. Thus, it is important to them. As long as those Protestants do not view the Bible itself as a god, nor do they understand it to be pointing to some other god than the one in it's pages, then they are not worshiping it.

I'm not a Catholic so the Ten Commandments are their problem. The Incarnation is a game-changer. Christ made visible the invisible God, and thus it is allowed that images of Him be depicted. Icons depict real people. The second commandment protects us from creating fantastical creatures that replace the true God. Icons depict real people and events that draw us to the true God. Worship and veneration are not the same. Worshiping an idol is the equivalent of replacing God with a created thing (or ideology or passion). Venerating an icon is an act of respect and love that glorifies the Creator (sort of like saluting to a soldier is an act of respect and honor that shows your loyalty to your country). God instructed Moses to create images. Just in case anyone thought God’s commandment to Moses excluded all visual images of anything as idols, check out Exodus 36:35-37:9 where, per the instructions of God, Moses has images of cherubim embroidered into the curtains of the tabernacle and statues of the same cast for the Ark of the Covenant.

All agree to the basic tenants of the Catholic Church and its traditions. Each Protestant denomination has its own interpretation of the Gospel and its own traditions there is no unity at all. If a Luthern says I need to be baptized as an infant to be saved but then a Baptist tells me that infant baptism means nothing, this is only one of the various differences between two Protestant sects.

Slight correction for you Ed the Arabic word for Jesus isn't Isa it's Yasū the real Arabic word for Jesus used by Christians in the Middle East. Isa is only used by Muslims and is only mentioned in the Quran.

I can't name you about four here, Lutherns, Baptist, Anglicanism, Calvinism, Pentecostalism, Methodism, and many more. I'm not Catholic, but I know all Catholics wheather. There are many Catholic rites not separate Churches since all of them are in communion with the see of Rome and are government by the Pope.

When the angel Gabriel was sent to Mary by the Father, he greeted her, "Hail, full of grace; the Lord is with you" (Luke 1:28). When Mary visited Elizabeth, Elizabeth exclaimed, "Of all women you are the most blessed, and blessed is the fruit of your womb" (Luke 1:41-42). So here we have the first part of the Hail Mary. St. Bernardine added the name of Jesus, clarifying who the fruit of her womb is. The second part is in response to the first, asking Mary to pray for us and addressing her as the mother of God. Of course, Elizabeth addressed her in much the same way: “Why should I be honored with a visit from the mother of my Lord?" (Luke 1:43). Since Gabriel's words were at the request of God, those words were actually God's words. So we are honored to repeat them.

Doesn't say Jesus is the only one sinless when it says Christ is the only way to to eternal life it's not because he's just sinless he was both God and Man had the both natures.

If Mary was not sinless she would not have been chosen to bear Jesus Christ into the world. Here, God Himself, speaking through the angel Gabriel, is using the words "Full of Grace" to address Mary. Obviously, anything full of grace can't have any sin.

Mary as Co-redeemer isn't one of the formally defined doctrines of the Catholic Church. https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/mary-mother-of-salvation

Lol where in the Bible? The Hail Mary prayer is even in the Bible. Biblical facts, you can't even show me where the Bible claims to be the Sole authority and your telling me Biblical facts? Yeah it is all in the Bible which is why there are 40000 Protestant sects who are all at each other's throats.

Tell me how it doesn't address the issue and by the way John MacArthur has been exposed as a liar with an anti catholic agenda. The only one trolling here is you refute the articles I showed you instead of spewing hate.

https://www.catholic.com/tract/the-institution-of-the-mass https://www.catholic.com/tract/mary-mother-of-god This refuted all your links and about the papacy I'm not a Catholic so I can't argue for the Pope and Papacy.

If I'm wrong prove it.

Got evidence to prove me wrong? You can't even prove it's idolatry you just do what all Protestants do, "protest against the Catholic Church." It's sheer I'd ignorance to say that the Protestant view is correct while the Roman Catholic view is false when there are 40000 different sects of Protestantism and each one preaches its own interpretation of the Gospel.

You still can't even answer my question on the Quran. Lol you think Christians just believe Jesus is lord and that he died for our sins and that's sums up Christian theology. Revising a verse doesn't mean removing it since it can still be available on other translations or copies and they will all still have the same meaning. If the meaning is different or contradictory in two different Bible versions then that makes a problem if not then it doesn't matter.

Is that why there are 40000 Protestant sects and each claim to be right? Protestants have only continued in their hate and apostasy throughout history and have continued moving further away. By the way you didn't refute anything I said and also the Bible does not claim to be the Sole Authority anywhere.