It is not in the Bible ?

[Hoddie]

2 hours ago, Davida said:

Lol! where ya been?  over.....and over.....and over......

With all respect Davida, this is just another impotent responce with nothing to back it up.

 

Peace

[Guest Robert]

1 hour ago, Thallasa said:

 

I find more and more the errors of a certain kind of idolatry of the bible more and more dangerous and divisive ,to the point that it completely and utterly destroys the main purpose of God's desire to to elevate the minds and hearts of His people . It is like being in a war zone, where the people who follow this idea,  haggling over every single detail , round and round you go , totally miss the point of God's plan  . 

You miss the whole point -because  facing the truth of where the true Evil comes from, is to be avoided at all costs ,and by concentrating on what is an annoying, but relatively harmless devtion to Mary ,you can divert elsewhere ,away from the truth of the real  false religion . 

1) It is God's word that reveals His plan and where we find out about His character; scripture tells us that His word is above all else.

2) "Harmless"? It's okay to give one's attention primarily to "Mary", but not the Word of God?

[Hoddie]

2 hours ago, Davida said:

But why Hoddie?  since it's been proven that the RCC ignores the Word of GOD when it is the inconvenient Truth and prefers to make up their own divine hierarchy,  rituals, dogma and write special mythology about Mary apart from the Word , right?

No... not right. Are talking about Sacred Tradition? If you are, Sacred Tradition is considered by Catholics to be on the same level with the Bible, not superior to it. Sacred Traditon and Sacred Scripture are both the Word of God. The Word of God in one form is not "superior" to the Word of God in another form.

　

Peace

[Hoddie]

3 hours ago, Ezra said:

Where would you like the false doctrines and false practices of the RCC to be proven? What proof are you prepared to accept? Rather than trying to support and promote false Christianity, you should be studying the Word of God to determine the truth.

Study the Word of God to determine the truth you say? Well 1 Tim.3:15 come to mind Ezra.

"But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth."

Which Church do you think that he thinks is the pillar and bulwark of the truth? I say its the Catholic Church that can trace its origin historicly to the time of Christ,, it's founder. Or do you think its your church.... if so, how old is your church and who is it's founder?

And let me ask you this...What did the early church do without the Bible for the first 382 years a.d.? The NT didn't even begin to be written until the late 40s a.d. by Paul with Thessalonians. The entire collection of books claiming to be inspired were not collected until 197a.d. what did they use before then? Then the canon of both old and new were studied, prayed about and finally decided in 382a.d. some made the cut, some did not. The Catholic Church decided this. God utilized the One visible church to do this.

This same church brought forth the Truth to the world for the first 1521 years a.d. None other. Sure there were sects of gnostics and pagans, and they even wrote about the Church and opposed her, but the church as seen in Matt. 18:16-20 has the power to anathematize those who do not hear her. No other church has this power. Yes, the Church is the very foundation of the Truth with the apostles and Jesus Christ as the foundation, Jesus being the chief cornerstone of that foundation, and the church upholds Jesus and His teachings to the world and always has.

So let me ask you one more thing Ezra....If the Church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth, are we wrong to listen to it with regards to matters of faith?

　

"There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church, which is, of course, quite a different thing."----- Bishop Fulton Sheen

　

Peace

[Hoddie]

1 hour ago, Yowm said:

Seems Like you missed vs 17....

'that the man of God may be perfect thouroughly furnished unto all good works.'

That speaks of sufficiency. Also, I wouldn't use Scripture to prove oral tradition or you are shooting yourself in the foot.

No I didn't ... no where does vs. 17 say that the bible alone is "sufficient" as a sole rule of fath.

[quote[ That speaks of sufficiency. [/quote]

Oh.... so you are now saying it only 'speaks' of sufficiency? And is this your fallible or infallible interpretation of the passage?

Also, I wouldn't use Scripture to prove oral tradition or you are shooting yourself in the foot.

If thats what you think....I can olny conclude that you don't know your bible very well, for Paul tells the Corinthians, "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2), and he commands the Thessalonians, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15). He even goes so far as to order, "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you 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).

To make sure that the apostolic tradition would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, "What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first four generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, the generation Timothy will teach, and the generation they in turn will teach.

Besides....The Gospel of John (Jn.1:14) says "and the Word became Flesh"

It doesn't say, "and the Word became paper."

　

Peace

[Ezra]

1 hour ago, Hoddie said:

Which Church do you think that he thinks is the pillar and bulwark of the truth? I say its the Catholic Church that can trace its origin historicly to the time of Christ,, it's founder. Or do you think its your church.... if so, how old is your church and who is it's founder?

How can a church which is founded on fiction be the pillar and ground of truth? Peter was never the Pope of Rome, and Peter was never the Rock on which the Church was built.  Had Peter been the Pope,  then the epistle to the Romans would have given him the necessary prominence.  Instead Peter is not even mentioned, because he was somewhere else.

[Hoddie]

1 hour ago, Yowm said:

1 hour ago, Yowm said:

That wasn't Jesus view...

Mark 7:13 KJVS
[13] Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

 

Our Catholic view beleives that the Jews went to great pains to ensure that their worship would conform to the instructions which God gave to Moses on Mount Sinai. God's call to his people was a call to holiness: "be holy, for I am holy" (Lev. 11:44; 19:2). In their zeal for holiness many elders developed elaborate traditions which became a burden for the people to carry out in their everyday lives. The Scribes and Pharisees were upset with Jesus because he allowed his disciples to break with their ritual traditions by eating with unclean hands. They sent a delegation all the way from Jerusalem to Galilee to bring their accusation in a face-to-face confrontation with Jesus. Jesus dealt with their accusation by going to the heart of the matter -- by looking at God's intention and purpose for the commandments. Jesus gave an example of how their use of ritual tradition excused them from fulfilling the commandment to honor one's father and mother. If someone wanted to avoid the duty of financially providing for their parents in old age or sickness they could say that their money or goods were an offering "given over to God" and thus exempt from any claim of charity or duty to help others. They broke God's law to fulfull a law of their own making. Jesus explained that they void God's command because they allowed their hearts and minds to be clouded by their own notions of religion.

The Scribes and Pharisees would have claimed 'Sacred Tradition ' as well. Rather Jesus would always counter with, "It is written".

It also says in John 21:25: "There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written."

And speaking of the Gospel Mark Yowm, and you being a Sola Scripturist, could you to give me book, chapter, and verse - from the Bible - that tells me the Gospel of Mark was written by someone named Mark, and that this Mark was indeed inspired by the Holy Spirit in writing that Gospel?

　

Peace

[Hoddie]

14 minutes ago, Ezra said:

How can a church which is founded on fiction be the pillar and ground of truth? Peter was never the Pope of Rome, and Peter was never the Rock on which the Church was built.  Had Peter been the Pope,  then the epistle to the Romans would have given him the necessary prominence.  Instead Peter is not even mentioned, because he was somewhere else.

Fiction? I think not, early church history and the early Church fathers say otherwise. Okay, so if your personal interpretation (fallible or infallibe?) beleives it not the Catholic Church, what Church is it...Yours? I noticed you didn't answer how old your church is and who is it's founder.

 

Peace

[Hoddie]

1 hour ago, Hoddie said:

23 minutes ago, Yowm said:

Many of the early Jews did go to great pains to follow the written Torah. But it wasn't their zeal for Moses that caused the swerve away, it was that they left God's Word and followed the teachings of the Rabbis' commentaries, just like many today will follow Tertullian, Origin, Augustine or Aquinas but leave Paul, Peter, John etc.

 

By who's authority did you come to this reasoning, and is it infallible?

 

Being a 'sola Scripturist' it is immaterial regarding Mark. All Scripture is inspired by the True Author...the Holy Spirit. Peter called Paul's writings Scripture and you can take it from there. Both Protestants and Catholics have included Mark as Scripture for internal biblical reasons...not because one head honcho said it was.

I disagree, I think it is. However, With all respect, I also feel as though you are dodging the question.

Again, could you please to give me book, chapter, and verse - from the Bible - that tells me the Gospel of Mark was written by someone named Mark, and that this Mark was indeed inspired by the Holy Spirit in writing that Gospel.

Peace

[Hoddie]

10 hours ago, Yowm said:

I see the game you are playing. Are these the typical 'gotcha' questions in your Catholic Apologist Manuals? Did Kreeft teach you that one? Don't you think they are a bit juvenile?

"Game?" "Gotcha" questions? No game playing or gotcha questions going on here. I thought we were just having ourselves a friendly little discussion. I also feel they are legitimate questions to ask of someone that adheres to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. So Yowm, does this mean your not going to give me a book, Chapter, or verse from the bible that tells me the Gospel of Mark was written by someone named Mark, and this Mark was inspired by the Holy Spirit in writing that Gospel? 

　Peace

p.s. not exactly sure who the Kreeft person is, (sounds familiar) but will try to look-um up.