Mary, Jesus and the Holy Spirit

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by HankD:

For instance, where is the word "transubstantiation" found in the Scripture?

I have asked this question of Catholics and John Chapter 6 is the official proof text of the RCC.
Why? Because you believe the concept of "transubstantiation" is taught there though the word itself is not used.

HankD

Hank, whether something is directly addressed in the Bible or not is a problem for you, but not for me.

The reason being you are "sola scriptura", I am not.

I rely upon the full authority of the Church: Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium.

Intellectual honesty would require that one who held to sola scriptura must do so consistently.

IMO sola scriptura isn't Scriptural. Even the Bereans didn't practice sola scriptura.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by The Galatian:

You couldn't get out of basic Catechism without that knowledge. I believe Anglicans are no different. It is referred to in the Catholic Church as the Baptism of desire, such as the Good Thief underwent on the cross.

I have heard the definition of baptism of desire before. No matter which way you define it, that is not what the thief on the cross had. There was no thought of baptism in his mind. "Lord remember me when you enter into you thy kingdom," does not speak of baptism, no matter how you look at it. He was saved by faith and by faith alone in the promises of Christ.
DHK

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by trying2understand:

Even the Bereans didn't practice sola scriptura.

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

The Bereans are one of the best examples of those who believed in sola scriptura. When they heard Paul's words the first thing they did is to search the Scriptures daily and compare what Paul had said to them. The Scriptures were their authority, their only authority for judging Paul's sermon.
DHK

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by trying2understand:

Even the Bereans didn't practice sola scriptura.

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

The Bereans are one of the best examples of those who believed in sola scriptura. When they heard Paul's words the first thing they did is to search the Scriptures daily and compare what Paul had said to them. The Scriptures were their authority, their only authority for judging Paul's sermon.
DHK</font>

DHK, try this link.

http://www.catholic-convert.com/writings/sola.html

 

[Dualhunter]

I don't think you understand, Sola Scriptura does not mean a person can't give a sermon, it means Scripture is the sole rule of faith and so the sermon must be consistent with Scripture. Your article tries to claim that because the Bereans listened to the sermon, they didn't believe in Sola Scriptura, but the article ignores the fact that they didn't simply listen but verified what Paul said in the Scriptures to be sure that he was really teaching the Word of God. Had Paul's teachings not been consistent with Scripture the Bereans would have rejected him, but they found his teachings to be consistent with the Word of God and they were considered noble for verifying and accepting the teachings which were consistent with Scripture.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by trying2understand:

DHK, try this link.
http://www.catholic-convert.com/writings/sola.html

Just one example of a quote from that site:
"There was also no basis in their Jewish Bibles to believe they should expect new revelation and new documents added to the Scriptures as additional infallible, inspired writings."

Obviously wrong. They accepted Paul's teaching on the basis of that which was written in their Jewish Bible. The site (of course Catholic), is so thoroughly biased, and does everything in its power to discredit a doctrine that is taught in the Bible, not just from Luther's time, but from the Apostle's time. What that author had to say is just a lot of nonsense, and not Bible based at all. It was his opinion, more akin to philosophy than Scriptural exposition.
DHK

[ August 06, 2002, 03:03 PM: Message edited by: DHK ]

 

[Star]

Can I ask a question here, In reference to the genealogies? Why were we told not to heed endless genealogies (1 Tim 1:4) Again we are told to avoid it in (Titus 3:9) I mean its pretty obvious in the verses itself but I wonder if its a part of regarding Christ after the flesh, after all (As AITB has reminded us embarassingly enough) that Christ is compared with Melchezedek without Father or mother or decent... Gees that makes sense that He never adressed Mary as Mother but as Woman. Unless ofcourse I'm missing it somewhere.

In fact when His Mother and brethren were outside waiting for Him and someone told Him that He asks the question, "who are my mother and brethren"? He stretched for His hands toward His disciples and declared them in truth to who He considered His Mother and brethren.

When it came to His departure He then refers to His disciples likening them to a Woman giving birth to a child. Again the patern for "being born from above" has now transcended from one single woman (represented by Mary) into the many (of whom she represents ) namely Christ in them (His body) their hope of glory. I think she represents a patern of the new birth in that regard. Considering the Sword that would peirce her own soul was so that the hearts of MANY might be revealed. She and They seem interlocked in that respect. Christ seemed to make the shift from her to them in an attempt to get them to regard Him after the Spirit redefining these things as He saw them rather then how they saw them.

I was just thinking on these things rereading the intial first post, any thoughts here?

In Him Kim

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by DHK:
Just one example of a quote from that site:
"There was also no basis in their Jewish Bibles to believe they should expect new revelation and new documents added to the Scriptures as additional infallible, inspired writings."

Obviously wrong.

The site (of course Catholic), is so thoroughly biased, and does everything in its power to discredit a doctrine that is taught in the Bible, not just from Luther's time, but from the Apostle's time. What that author had to say is just a lot of nonsense, and not Bible based at all. It was his opinion, more akin to philosophy than Scriptural exposition.

So what in the Old Testament led the Bereans to expect new documents to be added to Scripture as additional infallible and inspired writings?

DHK, this seems to be your usual response to any Catholic source: "biased".

But your response is a none response. Instead, why don't you walk me through it and explain the flaws in the line of reasoning?

While you are at it, why don't you cite the verse that teaches "sola scriptura"?

Then you can refer me to all of the historical documents that show that sola scriptura was an accepted doctrine since the times of the Apostles.

 

[The Galatian]

It would be impossible for sola scriptura to have been accepted from the time of the apostles.

First, there were no canonical versions of scripture, even among orthodox Christians. It depended on where you were, and in what year.

Second, the books themselves were compiled by men who depended on tradition and scholarship and revelation to determine which were authoritative.

The book cannot be more authoritative than the method that compiled it. It cannot stand under close examination.

 

[HankD]

Hi T2,

You posted…

Hank, whether something is directly addressed in the Bible or not is a problem for you, but not for me. The reason being you are "sola scriptura", I am not. I rely upon the full authority of the Church: Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium. Intellectual honesty would require that one who held to sola scriptura must do so consistently. IMO sola scriptura isn't Scriptural. Even the Bereans didn't practice sola scriptura. Biblical Authority.

Personally I don't like the words "sola scriptura". It has its roots in Luther. I realize that Baptists use the term but it is not particularly Baptist.

Here is an extract of the definition from the General Association of Regular Baptist website concerning Biblical Authority:

The Bible is the final authority in all matters of belief and practice because the Bible is inspired by God and bears the absolute authority of God Himself.

Final Authority, these are the key words. This answers perfectly to the objections of your website.
Final Authority is willing to look at "Tradition" (as an example) but then test it against the Scripture.

The Bereans listened to Paul's message and tested it against the Scripture as their final authority. To say that they did not have the Scriptures is to deny the Word of God which specifically says that they searched the Scriptures.

HankD

[ August 07, 2002, 05:39 PM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

[Alex]

Hank:

I grew up in Kelso/Longview, WA. Are you far from there?

God Bless...........Alex

[ August 07, 2002, 09:47 PM: Message edited by: Alex ]

 

[HankD]

Hi Alex,

I live in Olympia, about 90 miles north of Kelso.

I lived in New Orleans LA when I was a boy off of Jackson Ave in what was then called the Irish Channel.

To try to pull this back to something remotely related to the thread

What is your preference "sola scriptura" or "Final Authority of the Scripture" or something else?

HankD

[ August 07, 2002, 10:45 PM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

[Alex]

Originally posted by HankD:
Hi Alex,

I live in Olympia, about 90 miles north of Kelso.

I lived in New Orleans LA when I was a boy off of Jackson Ave in what was then called the Irish Channel.

To try to pull this back to something remotely related to the thread

What is your preference "sola scriptura" or "Final Authority of the Scripture" or something else?

HankD

Your comment: Final Authority, these are the key words. This answers perfectly to the objections of your website.
Final Authority is willing to look at "Tradition" (as an example) but then test it against the Scripture.

I find your comment self explanatory AND I believe that the Bible, overall, was written under divine inspiration by God and it is HIS FINAL AUTHORITY(WORD), with a big PERIOD! If anyone says it isn't, then where do they get their faith from? To say some of the Bible is fallible because of "human error", is to say God had nothing to do with it's writting. And, it is either ALL right or NONE is right, as far as I am concerned, but that is only my opinion. I would add that, to me, the Catholics have butchered up much of the meaning of the WORD and have led many astray!

God Bless............Alex

 

[The Galatian]

Except you have it backwards. The Bible was tested against tradition. That's how it was compiled.

Nothing can be more authoritative than it's own source.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by The Galatian:
Except you have it backwards. The Bible was tested against tradition. That's how it was compiled.

Nothing can be more authoritative than it's own source.

Basically the above statement is an admission of "I don't believe the Bible." You are saying that tradition has more authority than Scripture. Even the appeal of Jesus to the law of Moses would not convince you at this point. The Catholic Church relies on tradition. Jesus Himself appealed to the Scriptures. So did the Bereans, the prophets of the Old Testament, and the Apostles. All of them used the Scriptures as their final authority. The command of Jesus was to "Search the Scriptures," and for good reason. They are our authority.
DHK

 

[Alex]

Originally posted by The Galatian:
Except you have it backwards. The Bible was tested against tradition. That's how it was compiled.

Nothing can be more authoritative than it's own source.

Are you implying that God wasn't the author of the bible?

God Bless.............Alex

 

[The Galatian]

Basically the above statement is an admission of "I don't believe the Bible."

Nope. That makes no sense at all. I'm merely pointing out that the Bible that you suppose is inerrant was compiled by men who relied on scholarship, and tradition, and prayer to decide what works would be included and what works were not authoritative. Do you deny this?

You are saying that tradition has more authority than Scripture.

No, but tell me how a book compiled by this method is more reliable than the method.

Even the appeal of Jesus to the law of Moses would not convince you at this point.

It does no good to simply stamp your foot and insist. Tell me which version of the Bible do you think is authoritative, and show me that it was compiled by a method other than this. Bonus question: when do you think the first canonical Bible of any faith was prepared?

The Catholic Church relies on tradition.

Not exclusively. It is only one authoritative source.

Jesus Himself appealed to the Scriptures.

So do I, so do all other Christians. The facts remain. The Bible you think is more authoritative than tradition was gathered together using tradition.

So did the Bereans, the prophets of the Old Testament, and the Apostles. All of them used the Scriptures as their final authority. The command of Jesus was to "Search the Scriptures," and for good reason. They are our authority.

"Sola Scriptura" is a doctrine invented by a man in the 15th century. It doesn't even have tradition to speak for it.

Tell me which Bible you think is authoritative,and we'll discuss how it was put together.

 

[The Galatian]

Barbarian observes:
Except you have it backwards. The Bible was tested against tradition. That's how it was compiled.

Nothing can be more authoritative than it's own source.

Are you implying that God wasn't the author of the bible?

The Bible is made up of sacred scripture that was written over a very long time. God inspired men, who then wrote what He inspired.

There were many books thought to be inspired by God. Some of them made it into our Bible, some didn't.

1. When do you think the first "official" Bible was put together?

2. How do you think the people who put it together judged which books were authoritative, and which were not?

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by The Galatian:

Tell me which Bible you think is authoritative,and we'll discuss how it was put together.

Every translation of the Bible has its weaknesses. The Bible was inspired in its original autographs. I believe that we have the Bible preserved for us in the Hebrew Masoretic text of the Old Testament, and in the Majority text or the Textus Receptus in the New Testament.
DHK

 

[The Galatian]

On what basis do you think the people who compiled these texts did so?