Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Some protestant told you that Catholic teaching is not in the Bible. You ignore Catholics like me who say otherwise, who know the entire Bible (best version of all) and have studied Church history. As someone once said "To be deep in [Church] history is to cease being Protestant."I just feel like discussing the word of God with you is fruitless because you don't (apparently) share my belief in the validity of the screen. You are citing doctrines that are nowhere in said scriptures. We have no common point of reference. It would be like me debating a Buddhist.
Every Catholic doctrine and dogma IS indeed in the Bible. I've read the entire thing. Somehow I doubt you have. You may have read the entire NEW T but I seriously doubt you have read the whole thing.I just feel like discussing the word of God with you is fruitless because you don't (apparently) share my belief in the validity of the screen. You are citing doctrines that are nowhere in said scriptures. We have no common point of reference. It would be like me debating a Buddhist.
I'm sorry you have mother issues. I have a few myself. But that is why we need Mary more than those who don't have those issues. We need (can't speak for you but as for me) we need a good mother, one is not... I don't know. I'd best stop there.Maybe that's the difference. I am not debating. I am presenting other points for discussion. I am not after winning anything. I am guessing you have no idea how much I have studied scripture and God's people--and am therefore reminded how much more there is to God working with us.
It is merely a guess, but for some reason as you grew, you seemed to follow the Church? I never had that issue. The Church was/is always pointing to God, not itself. From my youngest days, I've always been reaching towards God, always conscious of the Body of Christ. You seem to think it is very important Mary be tossed out of the Body of Christ. I thought I had Mother Issues--but you certainly have me beat in that regard. Mary was a mother and therefore I avoided her like the plague. Even so, I have always recognized her as a member of the Body of Christ--and as someone Jesus loved, someone who loved Jesus like no other.
It doesn't. In fact there is a psg.. maybe in Peter that saysWhere does the Bible support sola scriptura anyway?
this is false information. JEsus never married.Exactly . I made the same comment in a very recent similar thread .
That is, Jesus was long dead when the Gnostic books were all available and the authors inevitably were working from memory or repeated information passed mouth to mouth .
So , Jesus did not actively and directly figure in the assembly of any of their mumbo jumbo.
Quite separately Jesus never died in around AD33 and was still preaching around Asia Minor until ca. AD 62 , a married man with a daughter and two sons .
The Cultists simply cannot even consider that evidence as it invalidates the unwitting scam completely .
They therefore fall back on Faith and final redemption -- a hopeless cop out .
well, that implies that the truth is something belonging only to the ancient world, which is not so. But it is true that protestants don't really like anything older than their own centuryAll Paul was aware of was that he was writing letters, that included Apostolic teachings. It is why Catholics value his letters, and why they became scripture.
Are you reading and understanding what I am writing? My answers are straight from the shoulder and completely honest. What is it about them you are not understanding?
I have read Protestant criticisms of Catholic practices. I have read Catholic and historic explanations of Catholic practices. After decades of this, it is clear that Protestant criticisms/interpretations of scripture date back to the fifteen hundreds and are based on a modern language not Biblical languages. They even have some of the etymology changes in the English language incorrect.
You say you want the truth. The truth does not lie in the 1500s and modern English. The truth lies in Apostolic times and Biblical languages.
how utterly ironic.This is the beauty of the Catholic Church abandoning scripture. They gave themselves a license to make up anything. You'll notice that Merriweather is long on pontificating his own opinions while not citing any scripture.
I'll follow the word of God. I suggest others do the same.
Every Catholic doctrine and dogma IS indeed in the Bible. I've read the entire thing. Somehow I doubt you have. You may have read the entire NEW T but I seriously doubt you have read the whole thing.
If you had, you would know about the Ark of the Covenant, a precursor to the Real Presence/Tabernacle in Catholic Churches.
Anyone who has not spent time in the Real Presence of Christ CANNOT at all claim to know Him..
+
Why not go with a translation of the Codex Alexandrinus? It's the oldest complete Bible and you don't need to go from Greek to English through Latin.which Protestant Bible are we to read and interpret for ourselves, like a pope?
I'll stick with the most ancient and most trustworthy version of Scripture known to man, the Douay Rheims which is NON interpretative. That means it was directly translated from the original languages of Christ into first Latin and then English, no interpretation given by the translator (St Jerome et al).
Then came Luther who thought he was wiser than Christ's Church and now we have all this mayhem and confusion and people staying away from ANY "church" because they can't see which one is the real deal.
Nice work, arch-heretic, excommunicated Luther!
I don't. The Douay Rheims is NON interpretative.Why not go with a translation of the Codex Alexandrinus? It's the oldest complete Bible and you don't need to go from Greek to English through Latin.
That raises an important issue. Exactly which books should be included. IIRC, Jude mentions the Book of Enoch, yet that book is excluded from the Bible. It also contains books that are not written by the people they are attributed to, so why include them? I would think that even Christians who don't believe in sola scriptura would like the question to be looked at with the aid of modern critical scholarship so that they can separate the wheat from the chaff.It doesn't. In fact there is a psg.. maybe in Peter that says
If everything Jesus did and said were to be written down, all the books in the world would likely not contain it all.
The Church produced the Scriptures (the new Testament), not the other way around. The Church in the 4th century decided which books to include and which to exclude. So the Bible Protestants have and swear allegiance to is a Book put togehter by the OMG OMG
hated Catholic Church
What's the benefit of going from Greek to Latin to English over going from Greek to English?I don't. The Douay Rheims is NON interpretative.
I don't have to worry about some human interpreting it, wrongly or otherwise. And it was a canonized saint who translated from the original languages into Latin, St Jerome, maybe the 4th century or thereabouts.
what is the benefit of nitpicking?What's the benefit of going from Greek to Latin to English over going from Greek to English?
Well, the Catholic Church has archived many historical writings. It would be great to spend time at the Vatican to read through them. Then also you can find books on the internet. But as always, one has to be careful what one reads. There are so many liars in the world.That raises an important issue. Exactly which books should be included. IIRC, Jude mentions the Book of Enoch, yet that book is excluded from the Bible. It also contains books that are not written by the people they are attributed to, so why include them? I would think that even Christians who don't believe in sola scriptura would like the question to be looked at with the aid of modern critical scholarship so that they can separate the wheat from the chaff.
It's not nitpicking.what is the benefit of nitpicking?
seems like it to me. Why not, instead of talking about Scripture, just read it. Even the not so great versions are far better than nothingIt's not nitpicking.
I have read the Bible, as well as several non-canonical books. In some cases I've looked at the Greek or Hebrew to try to figure out what was actually being said.seems like it to me. Why not, instead of talking about Scripture, just read it. Even the not so great versions are far better than nothing
It doesn't. Clever people cherry pick scripture and make compelling and false arguments to make it appear that it does. Jesus was clear when he told us not to judge by appearances.Where does the Bible support sola scriptura anyway?
