The $100,000 Roman Catholic Question.

[DHK]

You're missing the point of the OP and proving my point by your post. To remind you, the OP asked whether there was any church tradition, not explicitly recorded in Scripture, which is a matter of salvation, and which can be traced to the Apostolic Age. The Trinity is a prime example of that: it's not set out in Scripture - although like most Tradition, it can most certainly be inferred from Scripture - but you agree with me that the Apostles knew it.

The trinity (not the word), but the doctrine, is clearly set out in Scripture. That is why I answered in the way that I did. It is ridiculous to assume that the Apostles were ignorant of the trinity when they believed that there was one God, and at the same time believed the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit to be God. That is spelled out in Scripture very clearly.
Furthermore the doctrine of the trinity is doctrine, Biblical doctrine straight from the Scriptures themselves. It is not tradition, has nothing to do with tradition. It is not extra-Biblical, and one would be very foolish to say that it is.

 

[DHK]

Can you name one oral, extrabiblical tradition, demonstratively traceable to the apostolic age, which is necessary for the faith and practice of the Church of Jesus Christ?

That is the OP, in case some have missed it after 23 pages.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

So what is your point? Satanists believe in a trinity also. Are you saying that the belief in the trinity came from Satan? Or are you saying that the RCC's version of the belief of the trinity came from Satan and/or paganism. What is the point of your post? The trinity (God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit) is taught in the Bible, prior to the invention of the RCC. That is historical fact. The RCC has no claiim to it. The only thing that your post did was link the RCC to paganism.

Point is you and my former IFB preacher hadn’t got a clue on how to critically think when it comes to Church History research. When one finds a source that paints a particular denomination in a bad light, the romaphobics jump on it like it’s the gospel. Fact is my former IFB pastor picked a source that was biased towards Islam and used the source as a study guide. My research found that the same source was also critical of Christianity…So everything my pastor taught about Islam I had to dismiss.

Now, back to the Trinity again, it wasn’t an issue of the Deity of Christ in the Early Church…The issue was HOW the 3 persons of the Trinity CO-EXISTED as ONE God and even that wasn’t much of a debate in Early Church Tradition…got that much? Good…

What I look at is the unified nature of the deposit of faith; that there’s always been a recognizable body of beliefs and practices to which the Early Church Christians subscribed too. However, those beliefs did undergo testing with unrecognizable ambiguities, which created problems and allowed for heretical beliefs to sprout.

Take the Paulicians, they believed that there were two fundamental principles: a good God and an evil God; the first is the ruler of the world to come and the second the master of the present world. By their reasoning, then, Christ could not have been the Son of God because the good God could not take human form. They were basically dualists and Gnostics…So yes, they were rightfully condemned as hertical. But those are bits of information that David Cloud will conviently leave out…

See, what I learned as a IFB, was that these pastors made great use of Catholic tradition and history when it suited their purpose and rejected or ignored them both when they contradicted their presuppositions.


-

 

[Matt Black]

The trinity (not the word), but the doctrine, is clearly set out in Scripture. That is why I answered in the way that I did. It is ridiculous to assume that the Apostles were ignorant of the trinity when they believed that there was one God, and at the same time believed the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit to be God. That is spelled out in Scripture very clearly.
Furthermore the doctrine of the trinity is doctrine, Biblical doctrine straight from the Scriptures themselves. It is not tradition, has nothing to do with tradition. It is not extra-Biblical, and one would be very foolish to say that it is.

Please then quote me a Scripture, the Greek MSS of which date from the first five centuries of the Church, which explicitly says "God is three Persons in one divine Nature."

 

[bound]

Can you name one oral, extrabiblical tradition, demonstratively traceable to the apostolic age, which is necessary for the faith and practice of the Church of Jesus Christ?

Without a grasp of Platonism it is very difficult to understand, through the Bible alone, the teaching of the Holy Trinty. For example, John's Gospel and that of His Letters and the Letters of the Apostle Paul are steeped in Greek Philosophic terminology (logos, and other understandings of the Trinity as an emanation) which are very challenging to understand for one who doesn't have a grasp of the philosophic terminology of the day.

One of the verses that highlight a very challenging understanding of the life of the Trinity would be 1 Corinthians 15:24-28...

Then comes the end, when he [Christ] hands over the kingdom to God the Father, when he has brought to an end all rule and all authority and power. For he [Christ] must reign until he [Christ] has put all his enemies under his [Christ's] feet. The last enemy to be eliminated is death. For he [God the Father] has put everything in subjection under his [Christ's] feet. But when it says “everything” has been put in subjection, it is clear that this does not include the one [God the Father] who put everything in subjection to him [Christ]. And when all things are subjected to him [God the Father], then the Son himself will be subjected to the one [God the Father] who subjected everything to him [Christ], so that God may be all in all. -Bracketed text added for clarity by me. 1 Corinthians 15:24-28

This is probably one of the most challenging passages in the all of the New Testament which challenges our notion of the immutable life of the Godhead and without a grasp of the Philosophies of the day one is hard pressed to understand what Paul is saying here. From my studies it appears on first blush to be articulating a middle-platonist emanationism folding back into the Father at the end of the current and last age.

This is a really challenging passage for Fundamentalists and others too and I welcome further discussion on it but I do believe that there is a larger body of knowledge concerning the Holy Trinity than what we find handed down to us in the Bible.

Peace and God Bless.

 

[Eliyahu]

Please then quote me a Scripture, the Greek MSS of which date from the first five centuries of the Church, which explicitly says "God is three Persons in one divine Nature."

Why is the fifth century the deadline for the manuscripts? Is it your own judgment?

Which verses in NT specify Trinity? Is it OK if you find John 14:9-10 which says "He that hs seen me has seen the Father""I am in the Father and the Fatehr in me" and 1 Tim 3:16 " God was manifest in flesh" ?

P66 which dates back to 125-175 AD satisfy such for John which says the personality of the Holy Spirit as well.

Or do you need an explicit statement for the Trinity? Then you can find it only in 1 John 5:7-8.

Do you know which Greek manuscripts themselves contain 1 John 5 itself?


You must remember that the whole manuscripts for NT which date before 5c AD are not more than a few hundred ( 124 mss in my understanding) even though 5,366 mss have been discovered so far. Then among them, only a few of manuscripts dated before 5 c may have 1 John itself among about 500 manuscripts for 1 John.
\

You must remember that it was Roman Catholic who eradicated the Bibles, and burnt the Bibles, and killed the people who possessed the Bibles and tortured and killed the Bible Translators, in the name of their god!

You must know that the Bible reading was prohibited since 1229 until 2 Vatican Council in 1962.

The writings of Cyprian and Prisicillian state that "

and there are three which give testimony on earth, the water, the flesh the blood, and these three are in one, and there are three which give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one in Christ Jesus." and these date back before 380 AD.


Though there are only a handful number of Greek mss survived for it, there are hundreds of Latin texts which support this Johanine Comma.



The most powerful witness comes from the Bible itself.
Without Johanine Comma, there is a critical problem with Grammar, i.e.

Genders of 1 John 5:8 are the masculines, while the Spirit, Water, Blood are the neuter gender.
Moreover the wordings, Father, Word( not Son), the Holy Spirit are exactly the Johanine style.

Many of Catholic Doctrines cannot stand with Bible only, but they can stand only when one accept Apocrypha.



What if Apocrypha contradict Bible teaching? Should they still be accepted?
Catholic is another religion than Christianity, as it is based on Apocrypha, while Christianity is based on Sola Scriptura!


Catholic was called Romans or Roman Religion, while Christianity has remained as Christian.
We should not tolerate any Pagan religion which try to disguise themselves as if they are Christian as well.

 

[DHK]

Please then quote me a Scripture, the Greek MSS of which date from the first five centuries of the Church, which explicitly says "God is three Persons in one divine Nature."

1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

You probably have objections being on the liberal side of things, but this forum is not up for textual criticism debate. I believe the verse was in the original MSS, and therefore I am not going to argue it. The place for that argument is in the versions forum, in which you will find plenty of information.

OTOH, the word trinity need not be found in the Bible for the doctrine to be found.
Isaiah 43:10-11 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.
--There is only one God. His name was Jehovah. The Jews knew and understood this.

Jesus taught his disciples to pray after this manner: "Our Father which art in heaven

Jesus said: "I and my Father are one," (John 10:30). The Jews knew what he meant. They took up stones to stone him, because, he being a man, made himself God. His claim was deity and therefore they tried to stone him.

Acts 5:3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?
Acts 5:4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.

Peter declared that Ananias had lied unto the Holy Spirit who was God.

The have identified all three: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as God, and yet holding to a belief that there is only one God. That my friend is a belief in the trinity. It can be nothing else but.

 

[DHK]

Point is you and my former IFB preacher hadn’t got a clue on how to critically think when it comes to Church History research. When one finds a source that paints a particular denomination in a bad light, the romaphobics jump on it like it’s the gospel. Fact is my former IFB pastor picked a source that was biased towards Islam and used the source as a study guide. My research found that the same source was also critical of Christianity…So everything my pastor taught about Islam I had to dismiss.

Let me give you an example that perhaps you can relate to. I am sure that you have heard of the KJVO debate (King James Only). I am not King James Only, though I prefer the King James. There are some that are called (KJVO) because they believe that that particular version is the only inspired Word of God. Books have been written on it. I read one such book. I disagreed with most of which it said. However I found a couple of things that were accurate, true, and beneficial. People like yourself (and many others of the anti-KJVO mindset) would not bother with the book at all and simply say: "So everything the author says about ______I have to dismiss because he is wrong on this subject." That is a ridiculous stand to take. Is the pastor wrong about everything? I doubt it. Was his source biased? Perhaps. Does that mean every bit of information was wrong? No.
I was taught very early in life to read with a critical mind. Glean that which is correct and dismiss the rest. No one is 100% correct in everything. So why are you over-reacting?

Now, back to the Trinity again, it wasn’t an issue of the Deity of Christ in the Early Church…The issue was HOW the 3 persons of the Trinity CO-EXISTED as ONE God and even that wasn’t much of a debate in Early Church Tradition…got that much? Good…

No, I don't have that much. Doctrine is not tradition. You need to separate the two. The doctrine of the trinity is clearly taught in the Bible whether you want to accept that or not. It doesn't matter one iota when the ECF started their discussions of it, just like it doesn't matter when they started their discussions of the rapture. The doctrines are there. They don't fall under the realm of "extra-biblical doctrine." You are barking up the wrong tree.

What I look at is the unified nature of the deposit of faith; that there’s always been a recognizable body of beliefs and practices to which the Early Church Christians subscribed too. However, those beliefs did undergo testing with unrecognizable ambiguities, which created problems and allowed for heretical beliefs to sprout.

"There has always been a unified nature of the deposit of faith," you say. And yet you can't define what that deposit of faith is today. It certainly isn't what the ever-changing RCC doctrine is. Their heretical changing doctrine changes just like a chameleon changes its colors. Again, I point to the example of the Assumption. Not until 1950 was it made an official doctrine of the RCC. Not until 1532, at the Council of Trent were the Apocryphal Books accepted officially into the canon of Scripture. The Catholic Church waffles. It changes its doctrine at its own convenience, when it suits them best. But the Word of God changes never.

Take the Paulicians, they believed that there were two fundamental principles: a good God and an evil God; the first is the ruler of the world to come and the second the master of the present world. By their reasoning, then, Christ could not have been the Son of God because the good God could not take human form. They were basically dualists and Gnostics…So yes, they were rightfully condemned as hertical. But those are bits of information that David Cloud will conviently leave out…

You are confused. It sounds like you are speaking of the Zorastrians, and not the Paulicians. It sounds like you are reading from a source of information that has set out to deliberately misalign the Paulicians. Here is you bias again. Because David Cloud is IFB, and you had a bad experience with one IFB pastor, then everything that every IFB pastor says (including David Cloud) is wrong. He can't be right. How ridiculous!

See, what I learned as a IFB, was that these pastors made great use of Catholic tradition and history when it suited their purpose and rejected or ignored them both when they contradicted their presuppositions.
-

You see what I have learned about you and the IFBers. You have a bias that prohibits you from seeing the truth.

 

[Matt Black]

1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

I did impliedly ask (with my request for Greek MSS before the 5th - I might just as well have said 15th - century) that we didn't go down that particular rabbit-trail but since you insist,,,

You probably have objections being on the liberal side of things

I'm not, but do carry on...

but this forum is not up for textual criticism debate. I believe the verse was in the original MSS, and therefore I am not going to argue it.

And I believe it wasn't.

The place for that argument is in the versions forum, in which you will find plenty of information.

I will however argue the toss about it here because (a) I can't post in the Bible versions forum and (b) it is germane to this point.

No Greek MS containing that version of 1 John 5:7 exists prior to the 16th century. The earliest Bible we have containing this Johannine comma is Jerome's Vulgate, which of course is in Latin and suspiciously post-dates the Trinitarian Church Councils of the 4th century. So I don't buy the argument that it's original. (That incidentally answers Eliyahu's rather good point that he made prior to his descending into his usual anti-Catholic diatribes about Bible-burning etc)

OTOH, the word trinity need not be found in the Bible for the doctrine to be found.
Isaiah 43:10-11 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.
--There is only one God. His name was Jehovah. The Jews knew and understood this.

Jesus taught his disciples to pray after this manner: "Our Father which art in heaven

Jesus said: "I and my Father are one," (John 10:30). The Jews knew what he meant. They took up stones to stone him, because, he being a man, made himself God. His claim was deity and therefore they tried to stone him.

Acts 5:3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?
Acts 5:4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.

Peter declared that Ananias had lied unto the Holy Spirit who was God.

The have identified all three: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as God, and yet holding to a belief that there is only one God. That my friend is a belief in the trinity. It can be nothing else but.

Were that to be true, there would have been no Arian, Sabellian or other Trinitarian controversies, and no need for those 4th century Councils; there would also be no JWs or Christadelphians or such heretical sects, who accept the Scriptures but reject the Councils, today.

 

[DHK]

Were that to be true, there would have been no Arian, Sabellian or other Trinitarian controversies, and no need for those 4th century Councils; there would also be no JWs or Christadelphians or such heretical sects, who accept the Scriptures but reject the Councils, today.

That is about the lamest argument I have ever heard.
It is like saying: Because a doctrine is clearly taught in the Bible (eg. resurrection of Christ), there would never be any sects or cults existing that deny the resurrection of Christ (J.W.'s), and never any controversies about it. This is a most ridiculous argument Matt. Even some of the Corinthians denied a basic doctrine like the resurrection (1Cor.15).

1 Corinthians 15:12-13 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?
But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:

If there were disputes about such cardinal doctrines back in Paul's day, there no doubt were disputes about the trinity, the canon of Scripture, etc. That doesn't make the Bible any less accurate or inspired.
The truth is there for those who want it.

 

[Matt Black]

Not ridiculous at all - consider this: whilst Christ's deity can be found within the NT, and indeed that of the HS, quite how the three Persons of the Godhead fit together is not explicit, as CA has hinted. The flesh on those bones had to be put there by the Church and it's interesting and noteworthy that those who reject the Constantinian Church tend to wind up with sub-orthodox Trinitarianism or sub-orthodox Christology at least - JWs, some anabaptists/Mennonites (I'm thinking Melchior Hoffmann in particular), the other sects I mentioned etc - even with the Scriptures.

 

[Eliyahu]

Any attempts to justify the oral Catholic traditions by likening or equalizing them with the Trinity or any Biblical doctrines are ridiculous and insane.

Trinity or any other theological teachings are valid only when they are consistant with the Bible teachings.
We are sure that the Deity of Jesus is very clear when we read John 14:10, 1 Tim 3:16, John 10:30, Romans 9:5, Titus 2:13, Hebrew1:8.
The Personality of the Holy Spirit is clear in John 15:26, 16:7-14, 14:26 ACts 13:2. The Eternity of the Holy Spirit is evident in Heb 9:14 as it says " the eternal Spirit" and the Spirit of God was with God when God created the universe ( Gene 1:2)

However, Many Oral traditions of Catholic disagree with the Bible itself.
For example, Purgatory contradicts many statements of Bible. Bible says the believers are sleeping until the Lord comes. ( 1 Cor 11:30, 15:20, 15:23, 15:52, 1 Thess 4:13-14, 16). Even the Robber at the Cross went to the Paradise, without going to Purgatory. When do the Catholics go to the Purgatory? How can Catholics come out of Purgatory? Catholics teach that they can come out of it by the prayers and almsgiving of their descendents. Can any human works satisfy God? Even during their life on the earth, do their relatives pray enough for them? Can their Almsgiving be increased enough after their death? Are the current Catholics do enough Almsgiving and Prayers to appease God's wrath?
Catholic's bring the bases prayers to the dead from Apocrypha, but they often contradict Bible teaching such as Isaiah 8:19 and Psalm 106:28-29 which tells us that God shows His wrath against those who offer the sacrifice to the dead.
When do they go to the Purgatory?

Where is the papacy originated? Jesus said All ye are brethren ( Mt 23:8) and we can find only 2 offices in the Church when we read 1 tim 3:1-13, Phil 1:1. Titus 1:5-9, etc while we see the gifts and talents mentioned in Ephesians 4:11 and 1 Cor 12-14.

Is the Infant Baptism supported by Bible? Doesn't Bible say that one should believe in Jesus and then should be baptized? Read Acts 8:37.
Can babies confess their faith?
By having Infant Baptism, Catholics insinuated the wrong idea that one can be saved simply by Water baptism, and without Baptism there will be no salvation, which is absolutely absurd.
The most critical malice resulting from Infant Baptism is that Catholics brought so many un-bornagain church people into the Christendom. By Infant Baptism Satan brought millions of non Christian believers who never confessed their true faith in Jesus Christ.
In that sense, Satan is quite satisfied with the Infant Baptism, and he killed millions of true believers just because they refused the Infant Baptism.

If any oral tradition contradicts the written Bible, it must be rejected. Even the Trinity itself should be deserted if it contradicts the Bible. Deity of Christ is clear and true in the Bible. That's why we don't object Trinity. Catholic oral tradition cannot be equalized with any Biblical interpretation.

 

[Eliyahu]

How much more human veneration is needed for Mariatology to be called goddess worship?
See this.


http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/crown.htm


http://www.najumary.or.kr/mary/signs/tearsofblood.htm

someone took some sample of the blood to the Labaratory, then it was turned out to be Blood of a Pig!

 

[Eliyahu]

Is Catholic Mass correct?

The priests all the time request God to forgive their sins! They never bring the Gospel that such sins were already forgiven at the Cross. If they do so, they will find no reason to ask again God to forgive their sins next week. They keep their people in the darkness, without knowing the Gospel that Jesus paid all the price for the sins Once For All.

 

[Eliyahu]

When did the capacity of Mary explode like this? Was she able to do this while she was living on this earth?

http://www.frtommylane.com/fifthmariandogma.htm

 

[Eliyahu]

Is this Oral Tradition of True Believers?

Did Paul do like this?

Did the first Pope Peter make things like this?

http://www.maryqueenofheaven.net/index.htm


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_of_Heaven


http://www.geocities.com/reginamundi77/

 

[Bro. James]

Million dollar(inflation) question

Which is correct: The Faith, once for all delivered to the Saints; or The Faith, once(?) delivered to Constantine the Great?

Find the answer in: Sola Scriptura.

The doctrines and commandments of men are false without exception.:BangHead:

Choose wisely,

Bro. James

 

[Melanie]

Is Catholic Mass correct?

The priests all the time request God to forgive their sins! They never bring the Gospel that such sins were already forgiven at the Cross. If they do so, they will find no reason to ask again God to forgive their sins next week. They keep their people in the darkness, without knowing the Gospel that Jesus paid all the price for the sins Once For All.

....wow, so I can murder and do all sorts of wicked things AND still go to heaven.....oh my oh my

 

[Matt Black]

Which is correct: The Faith, once for all delivered to the Saints; or The Faith, once(?) delivered to Constantine the Great?

Find the answer in: Sola Scriptura.

The doctrines and commandments of men are false without exception.:BangHead:

Choose wisely,

Bro. James

What the heck has Constantine got to do with it? Oh yes, I forgot, he invented the Catholic Church, didn't he (according to your revisionist version of history) and was therefore a Bad Man(TM).

B-G, you're so right; I'm getting bevvied up on Jack Daniels as we speak and off to pay a visit to my favourite brothel shortly, as that's obviously OK with Eliyahu.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Is Catholic Mass correct?

The priests all the time request God to forgive their sins! They never bring the Gospel that such sins were already forgiven at the Cross. If they do so, they will find no reason to ask again God to forgive their sins next week. They keep their people in the darkness, without knowing the Gospel that Jesus paid all the price for the sins Once For All.

So Eliyahu, what is the Gospel?


-