Maybe some Protestants/Non-Catholics can answer......

[TheMatrixHasU71]

14 hours ago, Hoddie said:

So in other words, you cant find it in the bible. So if you can't Matrix, and you being a sola scripturists and all, must adimt it is unbiblical, correct? So if it is not biblical, it must be a tradition of man! (lower case t) Right? One thing I will say is that I don't ever recall seeing in Scriptue a divorced Christian being remarried by the clergy, have you? As a matter of fact... I recall Jesus commanding the complete opposite. Mk.10:9-12. And lets not forget Lk.16:18 either.

Regarding remarriage of divorced Christians THAT is not in the bible, just because some bible alone churches believe in it, that doesn't mean that it is in the bible, it is because men are fallible, men are not God so even the best churches will make mistakes once in a while. Will you please pay attention to what I am saying? I feel like I am talking to a brick wall here.

 

14 hours ago, Hoddie said:

As a matter of fact Matrix, I don't recall it being allowed in all of Christian history. History does show however that all Protestant denominations used to be against it including your very own reformers in the 16th c. (except for Henry the 8th) So you see, it seems that 99.9 % of all non-Catholic sects are condoning this "unbiblical" practice... mocking the very words of Jesus in the passages I provided. So guess the question is Matrix, does your church go against what Jesus taught? Did Jesus' teachings change? Dosen't Scripture tell us Jesus' Gospel cannot change? What is it? I'll tell ya what I think.... in Heb.13:8-9 it says.. "Jesus is the same yesterday and today and forever. Do not be carried away by all strange teachings." When did your church get carried away by strange teachings?

The Roman CAtholic church got carried away by strange teachings since before the 4th century

14 hours ago, Hoddie said:

 

Hold on now firecracker..... What happened to if it ain't in the bible it must be disguarded??? Are you saying that some things don't have to be in the bible to be practiced? I thinks that called "traditions of man"!! So what is it Matrix, is it the bible alone or not?? Now as far as the Sinners Prayer goes, and in the passages you provided, I do not see the words...

" Dear God in heaven, I come to you in the name of Jesus. I acknowledge to You that I am a sinner, and I am sorry for my sins and the life that I have lived; I need your forgiveness.I believe that your only begotten Son Jesus Christ shed His precious blood on the cross at Calvary and died for my sins, and I am now willing to turn from my sin.You said in Your Holy Word, Romans 10:9 that if we confess the Lord our God and believe in our hearts that God raised Jesus from the dead, we shall be saved.

Right now I confess Jesus as the Lord of my soul. With my heart, I believe that God raised Jesus from the dead. This very moment I accept Jesus Christ as my own personal Savior and according to His Word, right now I am saved.Thank you Jesus for your unlimited grace which has saved me from my sins. I thank you Jesus that your grace never leads to license, but rather it always leads to repentance. Therefore Lord Jesus transform my life so that I may bring glory and honor to you alone and not to myself.Thank you Jesus for dying for me and giving me eternal life. AMEN."

Then you are blinded. All those tenets can be found in the bible even if the exact wording of the prayer cant. So it IS in the bible. No time left, gotta go.

 

Now I'm not saying its a prayer that shouldn't be prayed, I'm just saying its not in Scripture... i.e. a tradition of man.

 

Really? Are you saying then that sometimes traditions of man are acceptable? Wow.... what happened to Sola Scriptura?? You got me confused, are you a sola scripturists (if it aint in the bible...forget about it) or not?

 

Then why are there thousands of Protestant/ non-Catholic sects that teach alcohol should be avoided at all costs? Whos got it right, and who does not? And let us not forget what Jesus Himself said in Matt.26:2

As far as dancing goes... where in Scripture does it say dancing with unrelated men and women is a sin, and should be avoided? Have you never danced with anyone other than your brother or sister, or your Mom and Dad for that matter? If you are married, did you never dance with him or her before you were married? If you didn't, I got a word for that... weird! Anyhoo, if that is the case, there is a dance I would definetly avoid! (Unless one is okay with marrying their relatives) Hmm..., why does the tune 'dueling banjos' come to mind? (just kiddin.)

 

Translation............. The Altar Call, and bowing ones head during prayer "is unbiblical", (do you even have an altar in you church?) and is a tradition of man. Besides Matrix, where did I say they were of Pagan origin? Thats a non-Catholic thing.

 

Then you being a sola scripturists should have no problem showing the Book, Chapter, and verse where it say's the New Testament interprets the Old. Or are you depending on the traditions of man? (again)

 

Thats because I don't adhere to the unbiblical doctrine of Sola Scriptura. (Bible Alone) I beleive in the "whole" word of God... Sacred Scripture and Sacred Traditions! So I ask again, where in Scripture does it say that the 'Bible Alone' is sufficient as a sole rule of faith?

 

Hmmm.... I'm not sure you are.(well aware)  If this is what you truley beleive, then let me ask you....do you beleive the Bible canon is necessary for our salvation?

 

Says who?

 

It's all cool.

Peace

 

[Hoddie]

8 hours ago, TheMatrixHasU71 said:

I have given you the proof when I keep quoting to you ALL SCRIPTURE is given under inspiration of God. Its very telling and easily understandable why that passage doesn't include anything beside scripture. You cant read into it what isn't there.

No you have not! What you (and plenty of other non-Catholics) have been doing is side-stepping or completely ignoring the questions. So let me put it to you by using a quote from my fellow Catholic 'Real Presence'.

"Tell me - in your own words and not by links - WHERE the Protestant Canon of Scripture came from if it was NOT from the Catholic Church.

WHEN was it declared?

WHO declared it?

WHO had the Authority to do so?"

I am hoping Matrix you have the courage to break away from your fellow non-Catholic sects and answer these questions honestly.

GOD is the pillar and foundation of truth 1 Tim 3:15. You are misreading the passage. Give glory to God alone not men! Stop giving glory to men, glory that belongs to God alone.

Wait a minute here Matrix! You are saying that in 1Tim.3:15 it says 'God' is the pillar and foundation of truth? Hmmm.... this is interisting because back on page six of this thread you said. "First of all, I use the AKJV Bible", remember? If you do not remember, I sure do. Well, I just so happened to actually look up what the AKJV bible says in 1Tim.3:15, and Lo and Behold it say's ..." But if I tarry long, that you may know how you ought to behave yourself in the house of God, which is the "CHURCH" of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth."  Did you see that???  The Church!

If you don't beleive me Matrix, look it up for yourself. Now, I would like to extend this to my other non-Catholic brothers and sisters. Do you agree with Matrix that it say's in 1Tim.3:15 that "God" is the Pillar and foundation of truth, or that it say's the "Church" is the Pillar and Foundation of truth? Now it would seem to the average Christian Matrix, what you are doing here is 'adding' to Gods Word by claiming something thats not in the bible.. With this being said Matrix, and me proving that this is not what Scripture say's, would you care to retract your statement?

3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, <--- the pillar and ground of the truth.

Matrix, just because you added an arrow between God and the pillar dosen't make it so. Reminds me of Martin Luther,  Sorry.

　

Peace

[Hoddie]

9 hours ago, TheMatrixHasU71 said:

Regarding remarriage of divorced Christians THAT is not in the bible, just because some bible alone churches believe in it, that doesn't mean that it is in the bible, it is because men are fallible, men are not God so even the best churches will make mistakes once in a while. Will you please pay attention to what I am saying? I feel like I am talking to a brick wall here.

I am pleased to see that you agree remarriage of divorced Christians is unbiblical Matrix. However, I couldn't help but notice you saying that just because some "Bible Alone" churches beleive in it doesen't mean it's in the bible. After reading this you have me scratching my head, because back on page five, second post of this thread you are defending Sola Scriptura where you state..."Sola Scriptura is biblical." Now I gotta ask, if you and I are going to continue in our discussion, what is your stance? Do you beleive that the Bible Alone is sufficient as a sole rule of faith, or not? By the sounds of this last post, I'm begining to wonder.

will you please pay attention to what I am saying? I feel like I am talking to a brick wall here.

I have been paying attention Matrix, I'm just waiting for a non-deflecting straight up answer where you think you got the Canon of your bible?

The Roman CAtholic church got carried away by strange teachings since before the 4th century

I am not quite sure by the wording of this sentence Matrix what you were trying to get at, please elaborate more for me to respond.

　

Peace

[bcbsr]

The issue is what constitutes "scripture"? To me "because Catholicism says so" is not a particularly convincing argument. To me scripture is that which Jesus and his apostles affirmed as scripture, which would include the Old Testament, the writings of the apostles, including Paul, and I would argue Hebrews, which though not signed appears to me to be written by Paul. And it would include the historical books endorsed by the apostles, namely Mark and Luke, who themselves didn't preach doctrine, but recorded history. 

[TheMatrixHasU71]

On ‎1‎/‎3‎/‎2017 at 0:53 PM, bcbsr said:

The issue is what constitutes "scripture"? To me "because Catholicism says so" is not a particularly convincing argument. To me scripture is that which Jesus and his apostles affirmed as scripture, which would include the Old Testament, the writings of the apostles, including Paul, and I would argue Hebrews, which though not signed appears to me to be written by Paul. And it would include the historical books endorsed by the apostles, namely Mark and Luke, who themselves didn't preach doctrine, but recorded history. 

I never understood why Catholics don't understand that the Apocryphals were left out because they contained HERETICAL teaching or historical errors.

[HAZARD]

Why the Apocrypha Isn't in the Bible.

http://jesus-is-lord.com/apocryph.htm

[Ezra]

14 hours ago, TheMatrixHasU71 said:

I never understood why Catholics don't understand that the Apocryphals were left out because they contained HERETICAL teaching or historical errors.

When you are taught that your church is the one true church, and that there is no salvation outside your church, you do not question any of its teachings (true or false).  It is similar to cult mind-control.

[Guest shiloh357]

One reason that we know that the Apocrypha is not part of the Word of God, that it was not inspired by God or intended by God to be part of the Christian canon, is that the enemy doesn't attack the Apocrypha.

When the history documentaries on various cable networks challenge the Bible, it is always the 66 books of Scripture, and never the Apocrypha that is called into question.   Genesis and the rest of the Pentateuch, the Gospels, for the most part is where the skeptics spend all of their time.

When was the last time that the History Channel rant a documentary questioning the validity of Judith, or Tobit or the books of the Maccabees?   Never.    Satan spends his time on the 66 books of what is erroneously referred to as "The Protestant Bible."

Not only that, but the Apocrypha doesn't have the manuscript witness that the New Testament and Old Testament have.    The New Testament alone has some 25,000 manuscripts dating from the early 2nd century to the 5th century.  And that is just the manuscripts that survived the ravages of time.   Who knows how many there really were?

Another reason Christians reject the Apocyrpha  is that the NT there are over 250 quotations and over 300 allusions to the the OT.  Not one quotation or any kind of reference to the Apocrypha is made in the NT, by Jesus or any other person in the NT. 

[woundeddog]

4 hours ago, Yowm said:

Was the Catholic Church of the 5th century the same as the RCC of the 21st century?

Neither  do I see the Church who hid in the catacombs of Rome the same as that entity who hunted down 'heretics' in the 13th-17th centuries with the sword. To act like today's RCC is the same 'catholic' church that 'canonized' Scripture is ridiculous.

I completely agree-- the primitive church of 4 and 5 AD over time morphed into the monstrosity that is today the RCC. no similarity at all- the old church built on scripture and martyrs blood clearly is not the "church" today that holds its followers in bondage and fear of Gods Wrath if they do not pursue all the empty sacramental acts and follow dogma established by man not God.

[Guest shiloh357]

14 hours ago, Yowm said:

Was the Catholic Church of the 5th century the same as the RCC of the 21st century?

Neither  do I see the Church who hid in the catacombs of Rome the same as that entity who hunted down 'heretics' in the 13th-17th centuries with the sword. To act like today's RCC is the same 'catholic' church that 'canonized' Scripture is ridiculous.

It also should be noted that the RCC did not officially canonize the Apocrypha until 1547 AD.