Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican

Full story: CBC News 560,464
The VaticanA issued a document Tuesday restatingA its belief that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church of Jesus Christ. Full Story
Concerned in Brasil

Aberdeen, UK

#479017 Sep 29, 2013
Clay wrote:
<quoted text>
The Essenes had Tobit and Sirach in their collection, what do you mean it doesn't mitigate against your belief? Protestants argue that there was an established Jewish canon of scripture around the time of Jesus, but there wasn't. It didn't happen in Judaism until 90 AD. The men who tried and executed the Lord, established the Protestant canon of scripture. This doesn't pose a problem for you?
Cyril and Jerome were in Jerusalem they say the Jews had fixed Cannon.

So they found Essense had Sirach in a clay pot in the same cave as Isaiah, if you go to my house I have the book Lonely planet Brazil on the same bookshelf as my Bible does that make them both scripture?

If we think illogically and stupidly like you the answer is yes.
Concerned in Brasil

Aberdeen, UK

#479018 Sep 29, 2013
Clay wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah so that's it. The Lord willed for YOU to bring the truth to humanity. He relied on future Bible scholars who boast of 'post secondary' education. That's how the Lord's message was to be revealed? Thru careful study of Hebrew and Greek? lol
You make Christ out to be a joke with your opinion on the Bible. Salvation, eternity, Heaven and Hell were such important issues that Christ went through an 8 hr execution for it, only to have his message be relied upon those who could decipher the Bible - when it was printed in 1452, of course.
Puff your chest out against the other self proclaimed authorities. Are you an osas evangelical? I don't think Confrint is.... pull out your Bible and bludgeon one of your fellow evangelicals on sola fide. The Holy Spirit isn't revealing two different truths ya know. Only one of you are being led by the Holy Spirit. Maybe the college degree is how Jesus shows us who is speaking the truth! lol
Your Sarcasm and belittling shows how petty of human being you are.

Jesus said on the Cross its Finished, rocks split in two, the sun was darkened, the curtain torn in two.

You don't have to be very smart or a rocket scientist to understand that last sacrifice needed was given, that when Jesus cries out it is FINISHED that means no more all done, and when you read Hebrews it confirms that to know when the RCC starts up the sacrifices again at Mass some 500 years later the RCC is out to lunch.

Only a brain dead brain washed enslaved, Pharisaical spirit would believe otherwise.
Concerned in Brasil

Aberdeen, UK

#479019 Sep 29, 2013
Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
Webster's theories are thoroughly destroyed here;
http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/w...
and here;
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/web.htm
and here;
http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/num49.htm
and there are many more.
Find a new researcher CIB, Webster is lame.
No these sites do not destroy anything, but ignorance is bliss

Please try to address one point I make with a logical rational argument and stop the he said she said because I say so its got be.

Clearly you think as does Clay your infallible in determining what is infallible.
LOL

You both are such Hypocrites, you both believe in Sola determination of what is infallible.
Concerned in Brasil

Aberdeen, UK

#479020 Sep 29, 2013
Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
1) I read it, It's baloney. As I said, your expert produced a list of books banned by the popes. One of them was written by a heretical group relating the Assumption and claimed to be apostolic. The popes rejected the book, they didn't reject the Assumption.
2) I didn't call anyone a name, I used "lame" as you did in your post.
3) You have yet to produce one iota of evidence for your "popes condemning the Assumption" or "10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 120 million killed" assertions. Then you turn around and use them as proof that the Catholic Church isn't the one true yada, yada.
4) It isn't beyond reason is that anti-Catholics such as yourself will spend all their leisure time reading Jack Chick tracts and other BS materials and develop conspiracy theories.
Ding Dong

If you read why did you say I did not give it, Wow you make your lies up on the fly and keep digging you are some 6 feet under and still digging.

Your sect says that the tradition was always believed from the early Church days.
It’s your sect that must produce the biblical and early church evidence for the assumption. Yet your very own RC scholars say it was not even mentioned till the 3rd century.

I am Clearly debating with a disingenuous dumb dumb, how’s that for name calling at least I get it right.

I have posted over and over again the evidence of the millions killed.

But again for sake of arrangement use the numbers the RCC uses, they don't deny they murdered heretics, and ONE ONE alone makes my assertion true your church is not one. Your sect is one of the 42000 or 30000 or whatever secular list your sect is going by these days.
Concerned in Brasil

Aberdeen, UK

#479021 Sep 29, 2013
Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
"Lets really be REAL bro the Apostles, my Lord Jesus never use anything but scripture to make an argument for doctrine and practice never once do the use what you call tradition."
Jesus celebrated Hanukkah. Where can we find the scripture for this Jewish Holy Day?
"Neither do the early church Fathers as I have demonstrated to you as you can't refute. You just say you can never putting up anything in context to prove your assertions."
Webster demonstrated nothing more than proof he's an amatuer historian.
I say Jesus only used scripture for doctrine you post he celebrated Hanukkah So what it does not contradict scripture and Jesus never said we should continue the tradition had he it would be scripture.

I practice Christmas on December 25th which is not in the bible either but it does not contradict scripture either.

DO YOU HAVE a POINT??????

Yes I am screaming at you this is absurd to say the least.
Concerned in Brasil

Aberdeen, UK

#479022 Sep 29, 2013
Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
The Thessalonians didn't accept St. Paul's preaching of the oral tradition, they were stuck on sola scriptura. The Bereans listened to the oral tradition as preached by St. Paul and searched scripture to confirm it. In many cases oral tradition EXPLAINS AND INTERPRETS scripture.
A good example of oral tradition in the early Church; John 6 is read by gnostics in AD 180. They believed it meant the Eucahrist was symbolic. The Church said no because the preaching of the apostles, which was passed down from previous generations, tells us that it is literal.
Jesus says in the Bible these words are spirit and not literal, most early church fathers agree with me, but I will go with Jesus he trumps all that comes after him, those that come after Jesus agree with him and speak the truth or disagree with him and at the very least are in error.

Paul's spoken words were found to agree with scripture and accompanied with miracles he raised the dead in their presence.

Your RCC assertions contradict the scriptures that came before and are not accompanied by miracles only death and lies.

Are you that blind to see the difference???
Concerned in Brasil

Aberdeen, UK

#479025 Sep 29, 2013
Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
From one of the sites I linked (wherein Webster gets destroyed) relating to the doctrinal mess protestantism is in;
"If any Protestant apologist would like to answer this challenge, then please tell me, the infallible doctrinal content of Holy Scripture, according to Protestantism, on (1) Baptism,(2) Eucharist,(3) the sacraments or "ordinances" in general,(4) Church government,(5) church services or how to conduct Liturgy,(6) salvation,(7) predestination and free will,(8) any number of moral issues: divorce, re-marriage, contraception, abortion, etc. Since there is great disagreement among "official" Protestant statements of faith, one cannot possibly know what is the official "Protestant position" (or from Holy Scripture the infallible "doctrinal content") on any of these issues."
Your posts are getting lamer but it looks like fun let me try.

"If any RCC apologist would like to answer this challenge, then please tell me show me, the infallible Unanimous historical tradition of early Church Fathers on doctrinal content were it is over 70% agreement on the following Holy
Tradition dogmas, according to the RCC, on (1) Baptism,(2) Eucharist,(3) the sacraments or "ordinances" in general,(4) Church government,(5) church services or how to conduct Liturgy,(6) salvation,(7) predestination and free will,(8) any number of moral issues: divorce, re-marriage, contraception, abortion, etc. Since there is great disagreement among "official" Protestant statements of faith, one cannot possibly know what is the official "Protestant position" (or from Holy Scripture the infallible "doctrinal content") on any of these issues."

But let me give you some help if it was unanimous there never would of been the need for Councils that never were unanimous in the end either.

Excuse my bluntness but you will be peeing in the wind if you try.
hojo

Minneapolis, MN

#479026 Sep 29, 2013
Oxbow wrote:
<quoted text>
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteouness
This one bible verse SAYS NOTHING to tell us about the Bible being THE ONE AND ONLY SOURCE of TRUTH that God chose to transmit HIS divine, infallible and inspired Word. It ONLY says that the Scriptures were inspired...WHY?? Because for the 1st 450 years (before) the Church, there was NO BIBLE! EVERYTHING that was taught in the Catholic Christian Churches came from the "oral teachings and traditions from Jesus" handed down by the Apostles along with a few written documents, manuscripts, parchments and letters (compiled) by the Apostles. Early Church Fathers (who were all Catholic Christian), spent over 400 years to translate these letters and documents (into the vernacular) from the Apostles.......... This is precisely why Sola Scriptura, bible only or Sola Ecclesia was NEVER believed by ANYONE until the 17th century. It is a "man-made" post reformation (invention)) that has "no basis" on ANY biblical or historical truth to it!! For the 1st 1700 years of the Catholic Christian Church (the word of God alone) or Sola Verbum Dei is the (the word of God) that comes to us from Christ and the Apostles through BOTH the written AND the oral tradition (unwritten) 2 Thess 2:15, which has been entrrusted to the Church that Jesus Christ HIMSELF builds upon the rock of Peter (Matt 16:13-21 and I Tim 3:15. The ineffable wisdom of God is made known through HIS CHURCH (Eph. 3:9-10 This is exactly why Paul (clearly, specifically and precisely) in his letter to TIMOTHY tells us that THE CHURCH (NOT THE BIBLE ALONG) is the pillar, pinnacle and foundation of the TRUTH........ Your bible only Protestant Church history book, is (full of holes) "riddled" with errors and mis-interpretations of Sacred Scripture along with omittions of truth, loaded with contradicting "personal opinions" that have absolutely no basis biblical or historical TRUTH (to back up) ANY documented, proven, and authenticated TRUTH from the vast majority of Church Historian Apologistic authors and writers (both Catholic and Protestant) 1500 years prior to the Reformation........This is "exactly" (after 35 years) why I left this contradicting, inconsistent and conflicting bible only half-truth Chrisitanity, that was "invented" in the (17th century). I am thankful, each and every day, that God Our Father, through HIS Son Jesus Christ and by the indewelling of the HOLY Spirit, directed and led me to the FULLNESS of the FAITH and the FULLNESS of the TRUTH in Jesus Christ, manifested in and through HIS One (and only one) TRUE Apostolic Catholic Church (the Bride of Christ)---You Ox and your other 42,000 contradicting bible only "fundies" can believe (and do) what you want! Makes no difference to us!!!!...... I/we as Catholics (know, without a doubt) where the FULLNESS of the TRUTH, has, is and will always be. And it is Jesus Christ HIMSELF in and through HIS (historically and biblically PROVEN) ONE TRUE CATHOLIC CHURCH, and non other!!!!!!!!!
Concerned in Brasil

Aberdeen, UK

#479027 Sep 29, 2013
Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
2 Tim. 3:14 - Protestants usually use 2 Tim. 3:16-17 to prove that the Bible is the sole authority of God's word. But examining these texts disproves their claim. Here, Paul appeals to apostolic tradition right before the Protestants' often quoted verse 2 Tim. 3:16-17. Thus, there is an appeal to tradition before there is an appeal to the Scriptures, and Protestants generally ignore this fact.
2 Tim. 3:15 - Paul then appeals to the sacred writings of Scripture referring to the Old Testament Scriptures with which Timothy was raised (not the New Testament which was not even compiled at the time of Paul's teaching). This verse also proves that one can come to faith in Jesus Christ without the New Testament.
2 Tim. 3:16 - this verse says that Scripture is "profitable" for every good work, but not exclusive. The word "profitable" is "ophelimos" in Greek. "Ophelimos" only means useful, which underscores that Scripture is not mandatory or exclusive. Protestants unbiblically argue that profitable means exclusive.
2 Tim. 3:16 - further, the verse "all Scripture" uses the words "pasa graphe" which actually means every (not all) Scripture. This means every passage of Scripture is useful. Thus, the erroneous Protestant reading of "pasa graphe" would mean every single passage of Scripture is exclusive. This would mean Christians could not only use "sola Matthew," or "sola Mark," but could rely on one single verse from a Gospel as the exclusive authority of God's word. This, of course, is not true and even Protestants would agree. Also, "pasa graphe" cannot mean "all of Scripture" because there was no New Testament canon to which Paul could have been referring, unless Protestants argue that the New Testament is not being included by Paul.
2 Tim. 3:16 - also, these inspired Old Testament Scriptures Paul is referring to included the deuterocanonical books which the Protestants removed from the Bible 1,500 years later.
2 Tim. 3:17 - Paul's reference to the "man of God" who may be complete refers to a clergyman, not a layman. It is an instruction to a bishop of the Church. So, although Protestants use it to prove their case, the passage is not even relevant to most of the faithful.
2 Tim. 3:17 - further, Paul's use of the word "complete" for every good work is "artios" which simply means the clergy is "suitable" or "fit." Also, artios does not describe the Scriptures, it describes the clergyman. So, Protestants cannot use this verse to argue the Scriptures are complete.
2 Tim. 3:16-17 - Finally, if these verses really mean that Paul was teaching sola Scriptura to the early Church, then why in 1 Thess. 2:13 does Paul teach that he is giving Revelation from God orally? Either Paul is contradicting his own teaching on sola Scriptura, or Paul was not teaching sola Scriptura in 2 Tim. 3:16-17. This is a critical point which Protestants cannot reconcile with their sola Scriptura position.
http://scripturecatholic.com/scripture_alone....
Blah Blah

80 yrs ago Gay meant happy today something else

YOU RCC's keep pouring into the word Tradition what you want it means to you today and not want in meant 2000 yrs ago.

HOW convenient for you but at the same time how erroneous as well.

By your illogical homosexuality was 100% in the US only 80 years ago especially at Christmas time all were singing they were Merry and Gay.
Concerned in Brasil

Aberdeen, UK

#479028 Sep 29, 2013
Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
2 Tim. 3:14 - Protestants usually use 2 Tim. 3:16-17 to prove that the Bible is the sole authority of God's word. But examining these texts disproves their claim. Here, Paul appeals to apostolic tradition right before the Protestants' often quoted verse 2 Tim. 3:16-17. Thus, there is an appeal to tradition before there is an appeal to the Scriptures, and Protestants generally ignore this fact.
2 Tim. 3:15 - Paul then appeals to the sacred writings of Scripture referring to the Old Testament Scriptures with which Timothy was raised (not the New Testament which was not even compiled at the time of Paul's teaching). This verse also proves that one can come to faith in Jesus Christ without the New Testament.
2 Tim. 3:16 - this verse says that Scripture is "profitable" for every good work, but not exclusive. The word "profitable" is "ophelimos" in Greek. "Ophelimos" only means useful, which underscores that Scripture is not mandatory or exclusive. Protestants unbiblically argue that profitable means exclusive.
2 Tim. 3:16 - further, the verse "all Scripture" uses the words "pasa graphe" which actually means every (not all) Scripture. This means every passage of Scripture is useful. Thus, the erroneous Protestant reading of "pasa graphe" would mean every single passage of Scripture is exclusive. This would mean Christians could not only use "sola Matthew," or "sola Mark," but could rely on one single verse from a Gospel as the exclusive authority of God's word. This, of course, is not true and even Protestants would agree. Also, "pasa graphe" cannot mean "all of Scripture" because there was no New Testament canon to which Paul could have been referring, unless Protestants argue that the New Testament is not being included by Paul.
2 Tim. 3:16 - also, these inspired Old Testament Scriptures Paul is referring to included the deuterocanonical books which the Protestants removed from the Bible 1,500 years later.
2 Tim. 3:17 - Paul's reference to the "man of God" who may be complete refers to a clergyman, not a layman. It is an instruction to a bishop of the Church. So, although Protestants use it to prove their case, the passage is not even relevant to most of the faithful.
2 Tim. 3:17 - further, Paul's use of the word "complete" for every good work is "artios" which simply means the clergy is "suitable" or "fit." Also, artios does not describe the Scriptures, it describes the clergyman. So, Protestants cannot use this verse to argue the Scriptures are complete.
2 Tim. 3:16-17 - Finally, if these verses really mean that Paul was teaching sola Scriptura to the early Church, then why in 1 Thess. 2:13 does Paul teach that he is giving Revelation from God orally? Either Paul is contradicting his own teaching on sola Scriptura, or Paul was not teaching sola Scriptura in 2 Tim. 3:16-17. This is a critical point which Protestants cannot reconcile with their sola Scriptura position.
http://scripturecatholic.com/scripture_alone....
Blah Blah

80 yrs ago Gay meant happy today something else

YOU RCC's keep pouring into the word Tradition what it means to you today and not what it meant 2000 yrs ago to those using it.

HOW convenient for you but at the same time how erroneous as well.

By your illogical homosexuality was 100% in the US only 80 years ago especially at Christmas time all were singing they were Merry and Gay.
Concerned in Brasil

Aberdeen, UK

#479029 Sep 29, 2013
For Ant more from your Hero

William Webster



Scripture has authority, as both Roman Catholics and evangelical Protestants will agree, because it is the Word of God. But Scripture is not the Word of God merely because the Church says it is. Scripture’s authority is derived from its intrinsic nature as a communication from God to man—it has an authority independent of the Church. In this chapter we want to examine the nature of that authority and the claim that Scripture is inspired by God and thereby trustworthy.

The basis on which Christians accept the inspiration of Scripture is because the Scriptures themselves make that claim. This is significant because if they did not claim divine inspiration for themselves then we would have no right to claim it for them. However, in 2 Peter 1:20-21, the apostle writes:‘But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.’ Peter is unequivocally claiming that the prophetic Scriptures are not a human but a divine work, that the authors wrote under the control of the Holy Spirit, and therefore that the Scriptures come from God.1

The fullest statement on the divine inspiration of Scripture, however, is found in Paul’s second letter to Timothy (3:15-17):

From childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

Paul clearly states here that all Scripture is inspired by God. He is referring specifically to the Old Testament since the New Testament canon was not complete at the time he wrote, but the New Testament must also be covered by this statement for in 2 Peter 3:16 Peter refers to Paul’s writings (including this epistle to Timothy) as Scripture. The apostles were confident to make such claims for their own writings because Jesus had promised them that the Holy Spirit would guide them in all truth, thereby enabling them to write the New Testament Scriptures (John 16:13).

cont
Concerned in Brasil

Aberdeen, UK

#479030 Sep 29, 2013
The words from 2 Timothy 3:15-17 are very important. The word used for ‘inspired’ literally means ‘God-breathed’. Though men wrote the Old and New Testaments, it is God who worked through them to write exactly what he wanted. By their own testimony the Scriptures are not merely the product of man, but are authored by God himself. This does not mean that men are not intimately involved in the process but rather that God, working through the personalities of the authors, so controlled the process and the individuals that the final product was exactly what he wanted said. And therefore, the Scriptures are infallible and inerrant because they are given by God and are an authoritative expression of his will and truth.

In his letter to Timothy, Paul tells his young coworker of the functions of the Word of God in the light of its divine inspiration. The Scriptures are ‘profitable’ or ‘useful’2 for instruction in doctrine—that is, they teach us what we are to believe and practise with respect to God and godliness—and they are also given to reprove and to correct false doctrine. The Word of God checks us where we are wrong and shows us how to correct ourselves; and this whole process of teaching, reproving and correcting trains us in righteousness. As we submit to the Word of God we are instructed in truth and directed how to live, and this makes us ‘adequate’ for every good work and for doing the will of God. The word Paul uses for adequate is artios, which means ‘complete’(or ‘perfect’). So Paul is arguing that the Scriptures are sufficient for an individual to be perfectly equipped for knowing and doing the will of God in the areas of faith and morals, because they are authoritatively given for that purpose.

The Roman Catholic Church, as already shown, teaches that Scripture alone is not all-sufficient—it must be supplemented by a tradition which is equally inspired. But, as we shall see below, the Apostle Paul never claims that tradition is inspired, authoritative and profitable in the same way as the Word of God. If the Scriptures are not sufficient and God has indeed given the Church tradition as a separate source of revelation, why is this never mentioned in Scripture itself? After all, Paul is writing about the Old Testament in this passage and there existed, beside Scripture, an extensive Jewish tradition, directly related to it, to which he could have referred. But he did not do so. So while we are told in unequivocal terms that Scripture is inspired, the Word of God is completely silent about the inspiration of tradition.

cont...
Concerned in Brasil

Aberdeen, UK

#479031 Sep 29, 2013
Anthony this is the most important part debunks your earlier post

To argue, as the Roman Catholic Church does, that 2 Timothy 3:15-17 says that Scripture is profitable but not sufficient as a rule of faith is to twist its meaning in order to defend a man-made tradition. This is not a new phenomenon. The Pharisees, according to Jesus, misinterpreted Scripture in order to adhere to their tradition and he condemned them for it (Matt. 15:1-9). But in both cases the Bible’s clear statement remains—Scripture is sufficient ‘for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work’.

The fact that Paul does not use the precise word ‘sufficient’ in the text just quoted in no way invalidates our statement. The sufficiency of Scripture, and therefore ‘sola scriptura’, is implicit in what he says and in the rest of biblical testimony.

The truth contained in the word ‘trinity’ stands upon exactly the same basis. The word itself is not found in Scripture. But it is a convenient term for summing up the general teaching of the Old and New Testaments on the nature of God. The teaching for which the word stands is in Scripture and therefore the use of the term is warranted. In like manner the terms ‘sufficiency’ or ‘sola scriptura’ sum up the overall teaching of Scripture about itself. Specific scriptural descriptions of the Word of God, which speak of its nature and function, lead us inescapably to this conclusion. The following are some of the words which tell us how God would have us regard his Word:

pure—perfect—sure—truth—eterna l—forever settled in heaven—it sanctifies—it causes spiritual growth—it is God-breathed—it is authoritative—it gives wisdom unto salvation—it makes the simple wise—it is living and active—it is a guide—it is a fire—a hammer—a seed—the sword of the Spirit—it gives the knowledge of God—it is a lamp to our feet—a light to our path—that which produces reverence for God—it heals—makes free—illuminates—produces faith— regenerates—converts the soul—brings conviction of sin—restrains from sin—is spiritual food—is infallible— inerrant—irrevocable—it searches the heart and mind—produces life—defeats Satan—proves truth—refutes error—is holy—equips for every good work—is the Word of the living God (Psa. 119:9-11, 38, 105, 130, 133, 160; Psa. 19:7-11; Psa. 111:7-8; Isa. 40:8; Eph. 5:26; 2 Tim. 3:15-17; Jer. 5:14, 23:29; Matt. 13:18-23; Eph. 6:17; Psa. 107:20; Titus 2:5; 1 Pet. 1:23, 2:2; Acts 20:32; John 8:32, 10:35, 17:17).

It is impossible to find a more convincing argument for the sufficiency of Scripture than these descriptions. And no such language is ever used about tradition in the Scriptures. Nowhere does it receive such commendation. We are told in explicit terms that Scripture is inspired, but never is that said of tradition. On the contrary, when the New Testament speaks of tradition it does so in words of warning (Matt. 15:2-6; Mark 7:3-13; Col. 2:8; 1 Pet. 1:18; Gal. 1:14). When we look at the overall teaching of Scripture about itself and tradition, it is surely clear that it teaches that Scripture is sufficient.
Concerned in Brasil

Aberdeen, UK

#479032 Sep 29, 2013
Any claim that such belief in Scripture was created by Paul and the other disciples must also be rejected. It is the express teaching of Jesus Christ himself. Christianity is founded upon the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God. His attitude to the Scriptures is supremely important. Since he is God, then all that he teaches must be true and authoritative.

Jesus clearly taught that Scripture is inspired by God. He regarded it as truth—infallible, inerrant, historically reliable, authoritative for living, and an all-sufficient rule of faith. He could say, for example, when speaking with the Pharisees or Sadducees,‘Have you not read what God said?’ and then quote from Scripture (Matt. 22:31-32). In Matthew 4:4-10, Jesus repeatedly answers Satan by using the Old Testament as the Word of God, saying,‘It is written.’ He maintained that not one jot or tittle would pass from the law until all was accomplished (Matt. 5:17) and that the Scriptures cannot be broken (John 10:35). In the prayer to his Father on the night before he was crucified, Jesus declared that ‘Thy word is truth’(John 17:17). He affirmed the historicity of Adam (Matt. 19:4), Cain and Abel (Luke 11:51), Noah (Luke 17:26), Jonah (Matt. 12:40), the creation account (Mark 10:6-9), and the reality of heaven and hell (Mark 9:44-46).

Jesus also used the Word of God as an ultimate standard of authority when he came into conflict with other people. He rebuked men with Scripture; correcting their false concepts, teaching and misinterpretations of Scripture by using scriptural proofs. Matthew 22:23-33, for example, describes how Jesus told the Sadducees that they were greatly mistaken in their denial of the resurrection because they did not know the Scriptures or the power of God. Then he quoted a passage from the book of Genesis as an authoritative declaration from God to correct them. It is highly significant that Christ never appealed to tradition as a standard of authority; instead he used Scripture to correct the errors of tradition.

As Jesus is Lord over the Church, the Church must not only accept his teaching on the Scriptures; it must also adopt the same attitude towards them that he did. His entire life was submitted to the authority of Scripture. In quoting passages from the Old Testament during his conflict with Satan in the wilderness, Christ was applying them to his own life and thereby demonstrating that he was under the authority of Scripture. His victory was accomplished through obedience to the Scriptures, as he used them as the ultimate authority for every area of his life. At another time, speaking of his relationship with his Father, Jesus said,‘I know him and keep his word’(John 8:55). From beginning to end, Christ’s life and ministry were governed by the authority of Scripture. As well as testifying to the truth of the Scriptures by submitting himself to their authority, Christ also declared their inspiration as he fulfilled in his life, death and resurrection the Messianic prophecies they contained. Over and over again he said,‘This is being done in order that that which is written might be fulfilled.’ Christ’s perfect fulfilment of the Old Testament Scriptures can be seen in any cursory examination of some of the more prominent Messianic prophecies:

Genesis 12:3, 21:22, 49:10; Numbers 24:17–19; 2 Samuel 7:12–13; 1 Chronicles 17:11–14—These Scriptures reveal the family lineage of the Messiah. He will be a descendant of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob from the tribe ofJudah, the family line of Jesse and a direct descendant of King David.
Micah 5:2—His place of birth will be Bethlehem.
Isaiah 7:14—He will be born of a virgin.
Daniel 9:24–27—The time of his public ministry as the Messiah will be after the Jews’ return from the Babylonian captivity and before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.

cont..
Concerned in Brasil

Aberdeen, UK

#479033 Sep 29, 2013
Isaiah 9:6; Psalm 2:1–12—His nature will be both God and man, and he will be the Son of God.
Isaiah 35:5, 6—He will perform miracles.
Psalm 41:9; Zechariah 11:11–13—He will be betrayed by a friend for thirty pieces of silver.
Zechariah 9:9—He will enter Jerusalem on the back of a donkey being proclaimed as the Messiah and King.
Isaiah 50:6, 52:14—He will be beaten, scourged and tortured by the Jews.
Isaiah 53:7—He will be silent before his accusers.
Psalm 22:6–8—He will be crucified.
Isaiah 53:8, 12—He will be killed.
Isaiah 53:4—6 , 12—He will suffer and die for the sins of the world.
Isaiah 49:6—He will be a source of salvation to the Gentiles.
Isaiah 53:9—He will be buried in a rich man’s tomb
Psalm 16:10—He will be raised from the dead.
There is only one man in history who was a Jew; a direct descendant of King David; born in Bethlehem before 70 A.D.; claimed to be the Son of God and Messiah; performed miracles; entered Jerusalem on the back of a donkey being proclaimed as King; was betrayed by a friend for thirty pieces of silver; was scourged, beaten, spat upon and tortured by the Jews; was silent in his sufferings; suffered death by crucifixion; reportedly died for the sins of the world; was buried in a rich man’s tomb and three days later was reported to be resurrected. His name is Jesus Christ.

The canonical Scriptures whose prophecies are thus fulfilled in Christ are God’s inspired revelation to man. This is the testimony of the Bible to itself and the testimony of the Lord Jesus Christ. As such they must be authoritative in all matters of faith.

***

Given the authority of the canonical Scriptures, it is essential to ascertain what documents should be included within them. Here, too, there is an important disagreement between the Roman Catholic Church and the Protestant Church, because Rome includes the Apocrypha as part of the Old Testament canon. The term Apocrypha describes a group of fourteen or fifteen documents, written between the second century B.C. and the time of Christ. The Church of Rome has included twelve of these in the canon of the Old Testament. In particular those writings included by Rome are—The Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, Judith, I and II Maccabees, Baruch, Letter of Jeremiah, Additions to Esther, Prayer of Azariah, Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon. The Roman Church has to hold on to the notion of the direct inspiration of the Apocrypha because, as we will see later, some of its distinctive doctrines, including the existence of purgatory, hang on particular interpretations of texts found Only in the apocryphal books. If it can be shown that these books were not accepted by the early Church as part of the legitimate scriptural canon, then the legitimacy of these distinctive Roman doctrines is destroyed.

cont... at http://www.the-highway.com/scripture1_Webster...
Clay

Saint Paul, MN

#479034 Sep 29, 2013
Concerned in Brasil wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey dumbie Jesus does not lie, Adam and Eve were real 7000 years ago plus or minus, Science has debunked Macro Evolution.
Nobody knows How long Adam Eve were in the Garden before the curse of death came upon them if the earth is old apparently for some time remember time was not measured until after the fall by Men as we did not age until the curse and death entered the world.
Yea of little faith.
However they say the earth is old because of Macro Evolution that is false each unproved theory is used to prove the other, its like your RCC assertions. Its all circular reasoning.
You started out your reply to me, "Hey dumbie", then you preceded to tell Adam and Eve were 7,000 yrs old. Yet, we find humans were much much much older than that.
How can you say time wasn't measured until Adam and Eve sinned? Let me give you a quick lesson... The Earth spins on its axis and the Sun 'rises' from the east and sets in the west. One full turn of the Earth is one day. The Earth orbits the Sun, this takes 365 days. The Moon orbits the Earth, this takes 27 days. During this time, with or without human inhabitants, all life gets old and dies. Animals, trees, fish, they all age and die. This Earth, since God created it, gets old. You do not need human sin to cause time. Time is the result of the Physiology of how God put together this planet.
It's a huge setback when the world thinks of Christians as the fundie ignorant flock that you belong to. Basically, you won't win converts if you require them to be stupid. You'll make Atheist out of them.
Concerned in Brasil

Aberdeen, UK

#479035 Sep 29, 2013
Husker Du wrote:
<quoted text>Why are you on a Catholic forum? Do you want to come back to the faith or do you want to harass Catholics?
This is not a Catholic Forum.

It is Secular Forum hosted by Topix, and this particular thread is about the RCC but was not created by a RC.

If you don't know what you are talking about and you don't its best you turn your computer off take a deep breath and read your bible and pray.

Not stop harassing people here as you don't even now where you are.
Clay

Saint Paul, MN

#479036 Sep 29, 2013
Concerned in Brasil wrote:
Any claim that such belief in Scripture was created by Paul and the other disciples must also be rejected. It is the express teaching of Jesus Christ himself. Christianity is founded upon the person and work of the Lord Jesus Chri
cont..
-Could you provide a list of Books that Jesus gave us when he commanded His Apostles to compile a Bible for the sole source of authority on His Ministry?

-Also, if the Bible interprets itself, how come the elder of the compound that wrote this essay is interpreting it. He's telling everyone what the Bible is saying. But many disagree with him - including non-Catholics. So what do you do with this dilemma?
You've got two born agains who can't agree on scripture meanings. Who's the authority to determine what God's will is?

- Also, scripture is not the only thing. If it is, could you provide a verse that says it is? You can't tell me what you think a verse is saying, because then you're interpreting it. Scripture ALONE is the what I'm looking for.
Concerned in Brasil

Aberdeen, UK

#479037 Sep 29, 2013
Clay wrote:
<quoted text>
You started out your reply to me, "Hey dumbie", then you preceded to tell Adam and Eve were 7,000 yrs old. Yet, we find humans were much much much older than that.
How can you say time wasn't measured until Adam and Eve sinned? Let me give you a quick lesson... The Earth spins on its axis and the Sun 'rises' from the east and sets in the west. One full turn of the Earth is one day. The Earth orbits the Sun, this takes 365 days. The Moon orbits the Earth, this takes 27 days. During this time, with or without human inhabitants, all life gets old and dies. Animals, trees, fish, they all age and die. This Earth, since God created it, gets old. You do not need human sin to cause time. Time is the result of the Physiology of how God put together this planet.
It's a huge setback when the world thinks of Christians as the fundie ignorant flock that you belong to. Basically, you won't win converts if you require them to be stupid. You'll make Atheist out of them.
Who says they are much older same ones that say a fetus is not a human and its ok to abort?? How do they measure it by Geology that assumes Marco Evolution is fact not a disproved theory? A. Yes.

Wake up either you believe or you don't in the Word of God you can't be half pregnant Jesus does not allow you to pick and choose as you see fit now who is truly the infalliable authority unto himself? A you.

If no one in the Garden dumb dumb counted the revolutions i.e. kept track of them then time was not being measured, its still rotating I never said it was not.

I take my leave of you clay you are stupid, not an insult, not name calling simply a fact you need to get educated on the basics which is clear has not happened yet.
Clay

Saint Paul, MN

#479039 Sep 29, 2013
Concerned in Brasil wrote:
<quoted text>
This is not a Catholic Forum.
It is Secular Forum hosted by Topix, and this particular thread is about the RCC but was not created by a RC.
If you don't know what you are talking about and you don't its best you turn your computer off take a deep breath and read your bible and pray.
Not stop harassing people here as you don't even now where you are.
This IS a Catholic forum. The title of this thread is a lie. The CATHOLIC Church never said "Roman" Catholic Church only true Church says Vatican'.
Roman is describing a particular diocese that practices a particular rite.
Therefore, it wouldn't make sense if the Vatican said "Roman Catholic Church" only true Church, because there are 23 Catholic Churches who are all true. It would be mean to say we are more 'truer' than them. Have you ever seen the Byzantine rite Mass? It's beautiful.

You can always tell a fundie essay by how many times they use the word Roman. They get fixated on that title because it better fits with their ideology. The Catholic Church does not call itself Roman Catholic and never has, unless they are announcing something concerning the diocese of Rome or the Roman missal. But never in announcing the Catholic Church as a whole.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 8 min Pegasus 265,447
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 12 min It aint necessari... 778,332
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 15 min truth 605,336
Moses never existed 35 min Khatru 827
Bingone (Nov '13) 37 min Bingone 13
The Topix Keepers (Dec '10) 40 min A noted Ferrerman 15,816
Wake up, Black America!! (Sep '13) 45 min Johnny 4,895
Straight guys: Would you ever have intercourse ... (Jul '12) 1 hr risque 137
More from around the web