The Mark is coming

[Silverhair]

I told you that the Catholic Church selected only books that were in continuous use in its liturgy going back to the Apostolic times.
That was the only selection criteria.



The Jews flat out rejected the entire New Testament, the Catholic Church wasn’t about to take advice from them. Protestants didn’t exist to consult them till more than a thousand years later.



Jesus was in the Temple at the Dedication solemnity, all Jews celebrated this solemnity. Something you can only find the purpose of in Maccabean books.
Protestants today still don’t know what the Dedication of the Temple was about, they rejected the books that would tell them.



Luthers main reason to reject the deuterocanonical books was because they supported Catholic doctrine. The same reason he rejected James appendicising it along with Hebrews, Jude and Revelation. Only later on were they added back by other Protestants.
Luther was founding a new religion, so of cause he was going to change the ancient bible to fit his new doctrines.
James was troublesome because it opposed the new doctrine of “ faith alone “. Hebrews referenced 2 Maccabees, Maccabees supported purgatory.



Not so bro, the councils at Hippo (393), Carthage (397, 419), II Nicea (787), Florence (1442), and Trent (1546) all held to the same Canon of scripture, all 73 books mate.

You continue to hold to what you have been taught by your catholic masters. You keep claiming that your church is biblical and yet you have still not provided any scripture that supports those errant views you hold.

You admit that your ideas of the Mass, the Eucharist, Confession, papal Infallibility, belief in purgatory, the understanding of Mary, everything came from Augustine or what you would call Apostolic Tradition and not the bible. So what it comes down to is you are trusting in some man not the bible and therein lays the error of your RCC.

Your the one that says all these are supported by the bible so just provide the Book Chapter and Verse and have done with it or just admit that these are just what you have been told you are to believe because some pope or counsel told you they were true.

 

[AustinC]

You continue to hold to what you have been taught by your catholic masters. You keep claiming that your church is biblical and yet you have still not provided any scripture that supports those errant views you hold.

You admit that your ideas of the Mass, the Eucharist, Confession, papal Infallibility, belief in purgatory, the understanding of Mary, everything came from Augustine or what you would call Apostolic Tradition and not the bible. So what it comes down to is you are trusting in some man not the bible and therein lays the error of your RCC.

Your the one that says all these are supported by the bible so just provide the Book Chapter and Verse and have done with it or just admit that these are just what you have been told you are to believe because some pope or counsel told you they were true.

Sliverhair, be honest, you are trusting in yourself as the interpreter, so your argument isn't much different, except you are creating your own tradition as you go along.
To argue the case, both you and Cathode have to pick a passage of scripture and show what the author of the text is saying. Do that and see what the differences are.

 

[AustinC]

So your saying God did it all alone, with no human agency, but especially not Catholic human agency ?

What did Paul say? 2 Timothy 3:16

 

[Silverhair]

Sliverhair, be honest, you are trusting in yourself as the interpreter, so your argument isn't much different, except you are creating your own tradition as you go along.
To argue the case, both you and Cathode have to pick a passage of scripture and show what the author of the text is saying. Do that and see what the differences are.

So you disagree with what I have posted about the catholic view. So are we to conclude that you think the catholic view is correct.

As I said before your posts a rather illogical.

 

[Cathode]

So you disagree with what I have posted about the catholic view. So are we to conclude that you think the catholic view is correct.

As I said before your posts a rather illogical.

I’ve looked into it dude, The Catholic Church is true. Just trust me on this one.

 

[AustinC]

So you disagree with what I have posted about the catholic view. So are we to conclude that you think the catholic view is correct.

As I said before your posts a rather illogical.

I have stated my case to Cathode. You can read it.
I state that we must wrestle with God's word. Study to show ourselves approved. Listen to the legacy of the saints, but always test them against God's word.

The Roman Church has abandoned the Bible as primary while clinging to commentaries of men as their primary source. In abandoning the primary source for secondary source, they have followed the path of the scribes and Pharisees whom Jesus openly rebuked.

 

[AustinC]

I’ve looked into it dude, The Catholic Church is true. Just trust me on this one.

What Bible passages have you studied in-depth on your own and then read the commentary's of Rome to see how your observation and their observation matches up?

 

[Cathode]

I’ve looked into it dude, The Catholic Church is true. Just trust me on this one.

Humour aside. Catholics don’t even trust their own interpretations of scripture.

Private interpretation of Scripture has always been forbidden, Scripture has always had a singular interpretation handed down from the Apostles.

 

[Silverhair]

I’ve looked into it dude, The Catholic Church is true. Just trust me on this one.

I’ve looked into it dude, The Catholic Church is not true.The Catholic church has built itself on a false foundation of authority. The RCC seems to think that they hold the only authority that allows them to present the truth of scripture. This has been based on a misunderstanding of Mat 16: 18-19. Since the foundation is faulty the rest of the house is faulty. Just trust me on this one

 

[Silverhair]

Humour aside. Catholics don’t even trust their own interpretations of scripture.

Private interpretation of Scripture has always been forbidden, Scripture has always had a singular interpretation handed down from the Apostles.

And therein lays a major problem of the RCC. You seem to think you have the inside track on the correct understanding of scripture. Even when you add false ideas to the text you do not question what you are told. That is why so many false ideas have come into your church which by the way you have still not provided any biblical support for.

 

[Silverhair]

I have stated my case to Cathode. You can read it.
I state that we must wrestle with God's word. Study to show ourselves approved. Listen to the legacy of the saints, but always test them against God's word.

The Roman Church has abandoned the Bible as primary while clinging to commentaries of men as their primary source. In abandoning the primary source for secondary source, they have followed the path of the scribes and Pharisees whom Jesus openly rebuked.

Still does not answer as to why you disagreed with what I had posted. As I said you are just illogical with many of your posts.

 

[Cathode]

I’ve looked into it dude, The Catholic Church is not true.The Catholic church has built itself on a false foundation of authority. The RCC seems to think that they hold the only authority that allows them to present the truth of scripture. This has been based on a misunderstanding of Mat 16: 18-19. Since the foundation is faulty the rest of the house is faulty. Just trust me on this one

How is it faulty? You keep saying it, but that assumes your personal interpretation is correct miraculously and all the Church Fathers are wrong.

“Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven.”

What the Church Fathers understanding is that this was the first Infallible declaration of the Church through Peter. Direct Revelation from The Eternal Father, you couldn’t get more Infallibly guided, it was from the Highest Authority.

No other Apostle got direct revelation from The Eternal Father Himself. The Holy Spirit yes, but not directly from The Eternal Father. This was different.

Jesus actually precipitated the situation by raising a question of Faith, ( knowing who Jesus is definitively, is an important theological article of Faith ) and God The Father made Peter His mouthpiece in answering it.

This is precisely what the Chair of Peter does. If some question of Faith arises for the life of the Church.

Same kind of thing happened when the gentiles were brought into the Church.

Peter again gets direct revelation from Heaven, regarding the clean and unclean animals. Peter was guided Infallibly by Heaven.

We see the same guidance of Israel through the Chair of Moses.

Even though Caiaphas was a bad dude, but he had the Infallible guidance of God for the life of Israel.

“Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all. it is better for you that one man should die for the people, not that the whole nation should perish.” he did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, not for the nation only, but also to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.” John 11:49-52.

God still operated through the Chair of Moses, even though the occupant was bad. The gift was not for the individual, it is for Israel and in Peters case The Church.

The Chair of Peter is the Christian version of the Chair of Moses, for the life and guidance of the Church.

Jesus established a binding and loosing Authority of Peter to guide and settle matters of faith for the Church.

 

[AustinC]

Still does not answer as to why you disagreed with what I had posted. As I said you are just illogical with many of your posts.

I pointed out that you trust in your self interpretation while Cathode trusts in his church interpretation. Both interpretations could be awful, but you won't concede that the interpretation of others might be helpful to you. Ultimately both you and Cathode are arguing for an interpretation of the text.

 

[37818]

The Chair of Peter is the Christian version of the Chair of Moses, for the life and guidance of the Church.

Chair?
Matthew 23:1-3, ". . . Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. . . ."

 

[Cathode]

Chair?
Matthew 23:1-3, ". . . Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. . . ."

That’s right.

Do as they teach, even if they do not practice what they teach. They were hypocrites.

This is very important for people to understand, they had God given authority even though they were not good people.

This is because God is still faithful in guiding Israel and the Church.

God still prophesied through Caiaphas, he did not speak of his own accord.
The gift of Infallibility was for the people of Israel and in Peter for the Church.

Paul rebuked Peter for his hypocrisy, because Peter taught at the council that God showed not partiality between Jew and gentile (inferring neither should we ) , yet Peter in his behaviour did show partially.
Peter favoured to keep company with the Jews and not the new gentile believers.

Paul was not rebuking Peters teaching, Paul was holding Peter to his teaching but rebuking his hypocritical behaviour.

It didn’t matter who occupied the Chair of Moses or Chair of Peter, whether they were weak, stupid or evil it didn’t matter, God is still faithful to guide the flock through them.

 

[Silverhair]

I pointed out that you trust in your self interpretation while Cathode trusts in his church interpretation. Both interpretations could be awful, but you won't concede that the interpretation of others might be helpful to you. Ultimately both you and Cathode are arguing for an interpretation of the text.

Austin as I said you are very illogical. You say the catholic church is wrong and then say that I am wrong when I say the catholic church is wrong. Strange fellow you are.

 

[Cathode]

I pointed out that you trust in your self interpretation while Cathode trusts in his church interpretation. Both interpretations could be awful, but you won't concede that the interpretation of others might be helpful to you. Ultimately both you and Cathode are arguing for an interpretation of the text.

My understanding of scripture is not my own or any other persons private interpretations of scripture.
It is 2000 year old Apostolic Tradition.

Think of the noble Bereans, they believed the spoken word of God Paul preached to them.
They referred to the Scriptures, but these weren’t a written set of the Gospels to confirm what Paul was teaching them was true. All they had in written form was Old Testament prophecy of the promised messiah to go by.
If they were scripture aloners, they would have rejected Paul’s new preached Gospel outright and kicked him out.

The Word of God comes down to us in two forms Spoken and Written, both abide forever and are of the same force.
Whole great crowds were converted by hearing the Gospel preached by the Spirit.
The Spoken Word of God we call Apostolic Tradition, this gives right understanding of the Written Word of God, guarded by The Holy Spirit down the ages Father to son in the preaching of the Church.

That is why Paul says “ Hold to the traditions we taught you, either by word of mouth or letter.”

Both together. Not scripture alone, that just leaves people exposed to every wind of doctrine, coming up with their own interpretations.

Many follow interpretive traditions of men without even knowing it, bits of Luther, Calvin and many others, these are not the ancient Apostolic understandings of Scripture handed down. These are traditions of men.

 

[Silverhair]

How is it faulty? You keep saying it, but that assumes your personal interpretation is correct miraculously and all the Church Fathers are wrong.

“Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven.”

What the Church Fathers understanding is that this was the first Infallible declaration of the Church through Peter. Direct Revelation from The Eternal Father, you couldn’t get more Infallibly guided, it was from the Highest Authority.

No other Apostle got direct revelation from The Eternal Father Himself. The Holy Spirit yes, but not directly from The Eternal Father. This was different.

Jesus actually precipitated the situation by raising a question of Faith, ( knowing who Jesus is definitively, is an important theological article of Faith ) and God The Father made Peter His mouthpiece in answering it.

This is precisely what the Chair of Peter does. If some question of Faith arises for the life of the Church.

Same kind of thing happened when the gentiles were brought into the Church.

Peter again gets direct revelation from Heaven, regarding the clean and unclean animals. Peter was guided Infallibly by Heaven.

We see the same guidance of Israel through the Chair of Moses.

Even though Caiaphas was a bad dude, but he had the Infallible guidance of God for the life of Israel.

“Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all. it is better for you that one man should die for the people, not that the whole nation should perish.” he did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, not for the nation only, but also to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.” John 11:49-52.

God still operated through the Chair of Moses, even though the occupant was bad. The gift was not for the individual, it is for Israel and in Peters case The Church.

The Chair of Peter is the Christian version of the Chair of Moses, for the life and guidance of the Church.

Jesus established a binding and loosing Authority of Peter to guide and settle matters of faith for the Church.

I see you have still not provided any biblical support for the many errant views that your church holds.

 

[Silverhair]

My understanding of scripture is not my own or any other persons private interpretations of scripture.
It is 2000 year old Apostolic Tradition.

Think of the noble Bereans, they believed the spoken word of God Paul preached to them.
They referred to the Scriptures, but these weren’t a written set of the Gospels to confirm what Paul was teaching them was true. All they had in written form was Old Testament prophecy of the promised messiah to go by.
If they were scripture aloners, they would have rejected Paul’s new preached Gospel outright and kicked him out.

The Word of God comes down to us in two forms Spoken and Written, both abide forever and are of the same force.
Whole great crowds were converted by hearing the Gospel preached by the Spirit.
The Spoken Word of God we call Apostolic Tradition, this gives right understanding of the Written Word of God, guarded by The Holy Spirit down the ages Father to son in the preaching of the Church.

That is why Paul says “ Hold to the traditions we taught you, either by word of mouth or letter.”

Both together. Not scripture alone, that just leaves people exposed to every wind of doctrine, coming up with their own interpretations.

Many follow interpretive traditions of men without even knowing it, bits of Luther, Calvin and many others, these are not the ancient Apostolic understandings of Scripture handed down. These are traditions of men.

@Cathode you mean like these ones that you have still not provided biblical support for "the Mass, the Eucharist, Confession, papal Infallibility, belief in purgatory, the understanding of Mary" You even admit that many of these ideas came from Augustine and are what you would call Apostolic Tradition. So lets get this clear, catholic tradition good, non-catholic tradition bad. Have I got that right?

 

[Cathode]

I see you have still not provided any biblical support for the many errant views that your church holds.

I used the scripture reference you gave in Matthew, even explained it to you in the ancient Apostolic understanding.

Jesus establishes His Apostolic Church on Peter, The Eternal Father speaks Infallibility through Peter the first time.

You say it was me that misunderstood this scripture, yet you haven’t said why.