Catholic Inventions?

DHK,

Couldnt agree more. What it comes down to is...who are we going to believe?

1) Gods truth found in the scriptures

2) Catholic false *truth* invented by the Catholic Church.

I choose #1.

God bless,

Mike

 

Couldnt agree more. What it comes down to is...who are we going to believe?

1) Gods truth found in the scriptures

2) Catholic false *truth* invented by the Catholic Church.

I choose #1.

God bless,

Mike </font>[/QUOTE]Who are we going to believe Mike, those early Church fathers who were with the Apostles that Christ sent out or the Protestant reformers who didn’t come on the scene until 13 centuries later? I say those early Church fathers were more likely to have understood the teachings of the Apostles than that of the Reformers.

Also, how many Apostles did Jesus send out during His great commission? From reading the Gospels Jesus sent out more than just Peter and John. So how about the other Apostles? Did they not establish Churches as well? Did they not encourage and correct the errors of their Churches they established with letters and oral traditions just as Peter and John or Paul did?

Furthermore, what did the early Church do in regards to searching scripture? As I said earlier there was no bible as we know of it today, which is why Paul instructed the Thessalonians to, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

Paul’s statement is why I am starting to read more and more of the writings of the early Church fathers, because these guys were a lot closer to the Apostles than that of the Reformers. These early Church fathers are the ones who would’ve held on to the traditions and therefore wrote of them as instructions for other churches then and now. Paul’s statement is just as good now as it was then.

Gotta go, my wife is in labor (our third). I’ll check back later this evening. I am really interested in the answer to the above questions.

 

john6:63,

The "church fathers" are not inerrant. Only the scriptures are inerrant. Peter himself...the so called "1st Pope", wich is absurd of course...was rebuked to his face by Paul because he was to be blamed.

The church fathers are to be put to the test of Gods scriptures. Anything that doesnt line up is to be rejected.

God bless,

Mike

 

In other words, they are to be rejected if they don't line up with your interpretation of Scriptures. I got it.

 

In other words, they are to be rejected if they don't line up with your interpretation of Scriptures. I got it. </font>[/QUOTE]They are to be repudiated if they don't line up with Scripture--Period!

Origen was declared a heretic by his own peers!
He has been labeled as the Father of Arianism.

Ireneus believed that Jesus lived to the ripe old age of 80.

Are we to believe these "church fathers" and their quirky ideas, or are we to believe the Bible? I know where my choice lies.
DHK

 

Which again begs the question, whose interpretation of Scripture?

BTW--Origen is technically not regarded as a "Father", as some of his more extreme views were condemned by the Church. And, the Irenaeus thing? Is that the best you can come up with? No one is saying the Fathers were inerrant on every little detail, but when they were all agreement in regards to the fundamentals of the faith, we probably ought to listen--especially if they (together) disagree with some of our pet interpretations of Scripture

 

Why the Reformers Read the Fathers

The Reformers taught "Sola Scriptura," which meant every person became their own Bible interpreter, right?

Wrong. We asked noted Reformation scholar David Steinmetz of Duke Divinity School about this. In this excerpt from our interview, he reminds us that the Reformers strove to ensure their own interpretations of Scripture matched those of the Fathers.

"The Reformation is an argument not just about the Bible but about the early Christian fathers, whom the Protestants wanted to claim. This is one of those things that is so obvious nobody has paid much attention to it—then you look and you see it everywhere.

"The Reformers use the Fathers all over the place. We know Calvin read Augustine, and we discovered recently that Luther read Jerome—he had copies annotated in his own hand. The index of Calvin's Institutes is filled with an enormous number of quotations from the Fathers. And in the first preface to that work, addressed to Francis I, Calvin did his best to show his teachings were in complete harmony with the Fathers.

"The Protestants did this because they were keen to have ancestors. They knew that innovation was another word for heresy. 'Ours is the ancient tradition,' they said. 'The innovations were introduced in the Middle Ages!' They issued anthologies of the Fathers to show the Fathers had taught what the Reformers were teaching.

"But they also turned to the Fathers because they found them important sources of insight into the text of Scripture. Calvin and Melanchthon both believed it was a very strong argument against a given theological position if you couldn't find authorization for it in the Fathers.

"All the Reformers loved Augustine (Luther, remember, was an Augustinian friar). Calvin, though he loved Augustine for doctrine, preferred Chrysostom's approach to biblical interpretation.

"Chrysostom is a verse-by-verse commentator in his sermons. Calvin doesn't mimic Chrysostom, but he appreciates his model.

Augustine flies a little too high above the text for Calvin—he is too quick to go to figures of speech, allegory, and so forth. Chrysostom flies at a lower level.

"Finally, the Reformation was not an argument about everything, but about just some things. It was not, for example, about the Trinity or the two natures of Christ. The Protestants had their own slant on these doctrines, but they agreed basically with Roman Catholics. Both confessed the Trinity and the two natures of Christ. And if we ask where these accepted doctrines came from—they came from the Fathers' reflections on the Bible!"

Copyright © 2003 by the author or Christianity Today International/Christian History magazine.
http://www.ctlibrary.com/ch/2003/80/5.10.html

 

This reminds me of the Nankin Massacre in WWII. 200 000 Chinese were killed, 80 000 women were raped and used as comfort women. Japan who committed the crime say this did not happened and refuse to publish REAL HISTORY in their school textbook. Their children grow up ignorant of the crimes their "fathers" did and blame the Chinese for telling them the truth.

 

Okay, lets take a look at SS interpretations that don't line up with Scripture

According to 2Timothy 3:1-17, taken in context, SS is limited to the Old Testament only, and includes all of the seven Old Testament books rejected by the reformers.</font>[/QUOTE]Literally interpreted it is true that the Scripture being referred to is the Old Testament, and the same is true of 2Pet.1:20,21 which refers to "holy men of old" and speaks also of inspiration. But the Bible does not contradict itself. We compare Scripture with Scripture and find out that these verses are applicable to the New Testament Scripture as well as the Old Testament. What verses tell us that?

2 Peter 3:1-2 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:
That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:

In verse two, Peter especially points out that the words of the apostles are just as important as the words of the prophets of the Old Testament. Both are equally "inspired." We are to be mindful of the commandments of both. From this we infer that Peter believes that all Scripture is inspired. Peter gives further evidence in the same book, same chapter.

2 Peter 3:15-16 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Peter recognized the epistles of Paul as Scripture. He says it very plainly here. They were the inspired Word of God.

For obvious reasons. The early believers knew which books were inspired and which were not. The above books were not inspired of God and thus were not included in the canon of Scripture. They were full of Gnostic errror, heresies. Give the early believers some credit here. They were not totally ignorant. They were the ones taught by the Apostles.

http://www.sundayschoolcourses.com/heresy/

You are mixing up apples and oranges. What does the determination of the canon of Scripture have to do with with sola scriptura. Sola Scriptura is the Scripture being the final source or authority in all matters of faith and doctrine. We have our 66 books in the Bible and have for a long time. The apocrypha has been discredited ever since 250 B.C., if not before then. The determination of the canon has nothing to do with sola scriptura.

The Bible never claims to tell you everything that is NOT in the Bible. It doesn't teach you physics or algebra. It wasn't meant to. It tells you everything that you need to know about God, and that is all you need to know. It is God's revelation to mankind about himself. It is a guidebook from God to man. Catholics have their extra-Biblical sources just like every other cult (ex. Mormons and the Book of Mormon.) We have the Bible only. It is all we need. It is our only authority in matters of faith and doctrine. That is sola scriptura.

SS is what the Word of God says.
2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

This is the command of God to you, not to the Catholic Church for you. It is your obligation to study God's Word for yourself and find out what it means. This is SS

This is only possible if you are saved; if you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ; if the Holy Spirit dwells within you. Then, the Holy Spirit illuminates the heart of the believer and gives the true meaning of Scripture to the believer.

That is because Catholics reject the true meaning of the word tradition in those verses. Very evidently there was no time (centuries), in the Catholic sense of the word, for there to be any tradition. The word simply means truth. It was the truth that Paul had taught them. Tradition simply refers to the truth of the Word of God that Paul had been teaching them. What kind of "tradition" in the Catholic sense of the word, would have developed between the death of Christ, 29 A.D., and the letter to the Thessalonians, about 58 A.D.? The answer is none. The tradition being spoken of is the truth of God's Word.

Yes it does, but it never once says the Catholic Church. In fact much about ecclesiology would be cleared up if the word "church" were properly translated "assembly." The assembly at Ephesus, where Timothy was, was the pillar and ground of the truth, as is every church that preaches the Bible. It is the foundation of the Bible (sola scriptura), and it upholds the truth of the Bible to all as a pillar upholds the roof of a great Temple. That is the picture that Paul was drawing.

We learn to identify figures of speech--similies and metaphors. If that were literal (the passage I think you have in mind), then we would be accused of cannibals. Jesus used plenty of figurative expressions. Tell me: What did Jesus mean when he said: "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle..." What is the eye of a needle? Remember there were no stainless steel sewing needles at that time. They hadn't been invented yet.

He did give us an interpreter--the Holy Spirit.

John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

It certainly wasn't the murderous Catholic Church, with all of its pagan practices, and man-made heretical doctrines. Study the book of Acts. The Lord left us churches not a "church."
DHK

 

Show me a word in John 6, which we could identify as a simile or a metaphor. Interesting to me when I read John 6 is that when Christ begins His sermon in the temple the Jews believe that He is speaking figurative. The mood of the Jews begins to change and even His disciples for that matter when they realize that Christ isn’t speaking figurative, because his sermon is now starting to offend them.

Does Christ attempt to clarify Himself? NO, He continues to repeat Himself over and over. We also see that this is the first time that a few of His disciples leave Him over a doctrinal disagreement.

Now, do you think that Christ would have let some of His disciples leave Him and walk with Him no more over a misunderstanding!?

 

John 6:30 They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?

John 6:31-32 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat. Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.

John 6:34-35 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

John 6:41-42 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven. And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?
--They were mystified because he did speak figuratively, and they couldn’t understand what he meant!

John 6:48 I am that bread of life.

John 6:51-52 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
--Again, the Jews could not understand him because he spoke figuratively and not literally.

John 6:53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
--Like all the preceding verses: figurative, symbolic.

John 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
--figurative and symbolic.

John 6:55-58 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
--All figurative and symbolic.
Jesus was not asking them to eat his literal body and drink his literal blood, and everyone there knew it. His use of constant metaphors throughout the whole chapter is very evident.
DHK

 

Living4Him,

And why do you suppose that "the church" is the pillar and foundation of truth?

Because literally every interpretation of theirs is true, and everything they proclaim beyond the scriptures as being true...is true?

Of course not. Only cults make such demonic claims.

It is because as the church of Jesus Christ we...

1) Proclaim to the world Jesus Christ...who is the way, the truth, and the life...as their only hope for salvation.

2) We present to the world Gods truth standard...His scriptures...and Gods word is pure inerrant truth. Jesus said "Thy word is truth".

3) We are guided by the Holy Spirit, who is referred to as...the "Spirit of truth" and who is the interpreter of truth.

That is why the church is the pillar and bullwork of truth, not this nonsense the Catholic Church attempts to lure the gullible into her clutches with.

God bless,

Mike

 

Amen
From a historiographical perspective the Rape of Nanking and the Spanish Inquisition are mirrors of eachother.
Nanking was swepped under the rug by Japanese historians for political reasons. The atrocities of the SI on the other hand were magnified 50 times also for political reasons.

 

Easy - John 16 THE HOLY SPIRITS "interpretation" as Pope Peter said we should hear HIM not "Any of man's own interpretation" -- REMEMBER??

So that is why in Acts 17:11 we find NON CHRISTIANS judging APOSTLES to SEE IF the things they are claiming ARE SO -- via the WORD OF GOD!!

A more devastating case against the RC argument could not be imagined!!

In Christ,

Bob

 

Now there is a self-conflicted statement! "Lets take Bible-BASED positions that don't line up with the Bible"?!!!

It is true that the term "SCRIPTUREs" used in 2Tim 1 and 2Tim 3 that were read to Timothy in his youth were only the OT.

It is also true that EVEN the NT authors as they QUOTE what they call "scriptures" in their letters to the church ONLY quote the NT.

But this is NOT ANTI-Sola Scriptura!! Rather it is AN EXAMPLE OF sola-Scriptura!!

Easy -- Not inspired and of doubtful authorship.

This is an argument from the OT showing SS to fail??

This his classic misdirection in the RC argument. INSTEAD of arguing any actual problem IN scripture!

But this argument is fully debunked in Mark 7. CHrist CONDEMNS the traditions of the CHURCH LEADERS as it CONTRADICTS God's Word - EVEN THOUGH it is church leaders that also compiled the OT letters dividing scriptures from the Mishnah-traditions. "TEaching for DOCTRINE the TRADITIONS of men".

Your argument is actually against Christ Himself in Mark 7!

In Christ,

Bob

 

John 6:30 They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?

John 6:31-32 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat. Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.

John 6:34-35 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

John 6:41-42 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven. And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?
--They were mystified because he did speak figuratively, and they couldn’t understand what he meant!

John 6:48 I am that bread of life.

John 6:51-52 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
--Again, the Jews could not understand him because he spoke figuratively and not literally.

John 6:53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
--Like all the preceding verses: figurative, symbolic.

John 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
--figurative and symbolic.

John 6:55-58 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
--All figurative and symbolic.
Jesus was not asking them to eat his literal body and drink his literal blood, and everyone there knew it. His use of constant metaphors throughout the whole chapter is very evident.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]Still no particular words that are similes or metaphors, only your interpretation that Jesus had to have been speaking figuratively. I also held that view for many, many years until I finally stopped fooling myself and had to seriously answer the questions that were in the back of my mind.

1. Since Jesus in John 6 made no attempt to correct the misunderstanding, as He had done on other occasions (see Mt. 16:5-12). Here Jesus explained what He was talking about to clear up any misunderstandings.

2. Why would Christ let some of His disciples leave and walk with Him no more over a little misunderstanding, when on other occasions Jesus went to lengths to correct Himself to clear up any misunderstandings? He Christ lets them go. If my pastor was preaching a sermon and I questioned him on the sermon and I felt it was a doctrinal issue, my pastor would make every attempt to clarify any misunderstandings I may have had OR he would repeat what he had just preached on and if I left…I left. He shouldn’t soften the sermon just to please me.

3. Paul who didn’t even witness this sermon confirmed what Jesus had preached on when Paul wrote to the Corinthians. 1 Cor. 10:16): The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? So by Paul’s admission, when the Catholics take communion, they participate in the body and blood of Christ. Also Paul states in 1 Cor. 11:27,29) that anyone who partakes in this communion unworthy will eat and drink condemnation on himself. Now why could eating and drinking mere bread and wine “unworthily” be so serious? Makes NO sense to me.

 

Please take a literature course and understand what a metaphor is.
Almost every verse I posted was a metaphor.

I am the bread of life.
That is a figure of speech; a metaphor. Was Jesus a loaf of bread? No. This is a metaphor. The bread symbolically stood for something. It is your duty to find out what that bread of life meant that Jesus was referring to. Jesus spoke using these figures all the time. He used such metaphors, and parables as well, often. How can you deny this.

You are the salt of the world. Send a picture of yourself to me. Do you have the likeness of that container of salt that sits on my table. You are very odd if you do. So in this metaphor (saying one thing is something else), what did Jesus mean? Using the context, it is your duty to figure it out.

Go through John 6, find all the metaphors that he used and tell me what they mean. Don't be illiterate in the English language.

Many of his so-called disciples left for two reasons. Jesus identified them for you. He said plainly that they followed him not because of the spiritual food but because of the physical food that he had fed them with. They didn't care about spiritual things.

A second reason was that the things that he had been teaching his disciples, some of them understood, but went away anyway, because these things were too hard for them to accept. To be a disciple requires sacrifice. They were not willing to pay the price to be a disciple. Thus they walked away. For these two reasons many left.
DHK

 

DHK posted several clear metaphors...such as "You are the salt of the earth" and "I am the bread of life", and John 6:63 said, in response to DHK's metaphors...

Which led DHK to say...

And I agree, except a literature course isnt needed...merely a trip to the nearest dictionary.

Here is the definition or "Metaphor"...

"A figure of speech in which a word or phrase that ordinarily designates one thing is used to designate another, thus making an implicit comparison, as in “a sea of troubles” or “All the world's a stage”."

It couldnt be any clearer. Jesus Christs body was not...and is not...literally bread. Just as the 1st disciples did not literally turn from "human" to "salt".

Mike