The Biblical Basis for Catholic Distinctives

[BreadOfLife]

Scripture is CLEAR, Scripture is sufficient for Gods Knowledge.
You own a Bible. You can Read. You are no longer a Child.
You have no Excuse. Your endless speaking Against Scripture is your burden to bear.

NOWHERE does Scripture make this claim - as YOU have repeatedly failed to produce the verse..

Scripture DOSE say that you shouldn't LIE (Exod. 20:16, Prov. 19:9, Rev. 21:8) - so maybe you'd better stop . . .

 

[Brakelite]

NOWHERE does Scripture make this claim - as YOU have repeatedly failed to produce the verse..

Scripture DOSE say that you shouldn't LIE (Exod. 20:16, Prov. 19:9, Rev. 21:8) - so maybe you'd better stop . . .

As to the sufficiency of scripture...

KJV Isaiah 8:20
20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
KJV Luke 16:31
31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.
KJV Luke 24:44
44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

And to the insufficiency of man...

KJV Psalms 118:9
9 It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in princes.
KJV Proverbs 30:5-6
5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
KJV John 15:5
5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.

 

[marks]

he defers to Peter's authority in Paul's dispute with Peter (Gal. 2:11-14). Years later, Paul needs to go to Jerusalem to seek the endorsement of Peter and James the brother of Jesus for his Gospel (1:18-2:10), though he is very defensive about the need for such deference.

I've never heard these two things expressed in such a manner. To me, this does violence to the Scripture.

Galatians 1:15-19 LITV
15) But when God was pleased, He having separated me from my mother's belly, and having called me through His grace, Isa. 49:1
16) to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the nations, immediately I did not confer with flesh and blood,
17) nor did I go up to Jerusalem to the apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia and returned again to Damascus.
18) Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to learn from Peter and remained with him fifteen days.
19) But I saw no other of the apostles except James the brother of the Lord.

(no Barnabas)

Galatians 2:1-2 LITV
1) Then through fourteen years, I again went up to Jerusalem with Barnabas, also taking Titus with me.
2) And I went up according to revelation. And I put before them the gospel which I proclaim in the nations, but privately to the ones seeming to be pillars, lest I run, or I ran, into vanity.

Where is Paul defensive? Seeking approval?

Galatians 2:11-14 LITV
11) But when Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was to be blamed.
12) For before some came from James, he ate with the nations. But when they came, he drew back and separated himself, being afraid of those of the circumcision.
13) And also the rest of the Jews dissembled with him, so as even Barnabas was led away with their dissembling.
14) But when I saw that they did not walk uprightly with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before all, If you being a Jew, live heathen-like, and not as the Jews, why do you compel the nations to Judaize?

he defers to Peter's authority in Paul's dispute with Peter

You're getting something entirely different from the account than what I'm seeing. Barnabas was stumbled by Peter, led away with their dissembling.

Galatians 2:4-9 LITV
4) But it was because of those false brothers stealing in, who stole in to spy on our freedom which we have in Christ Jesus, they desiring to enslave us,
5) to whom not even for an hour did we yield in subjection, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.
6) But from those seeming to be something (of what kind they were then does not matter to me; God does not accept the face of man), for those seeming to be important conferred nothing to me;
7) but on the contrary, seeing that I have been entrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision, even as Peter to the circumcision,
8) (for He working in Peter to an apostleship of the circumcision, also worked in me to the nations),
9) and knowing the grace given to me, James and Cephas and John, those seeming to be pillars, gave right hands of fellowship to Barnabas and to me, that we go to the nations, but they to the circumcision;

The way you tell it doesn't seem to resemble what I'm reading here.

Much love!

 

[Berserk]

marks: "(no Barnabas [in Gal. 1:15-19])...Where is Paul defensive? Seeking approval?

(1) In Galatians 1-2 Paul defensively leaves out his need for Barnabas to accompany him on this his first trip to Jerusalem (Acts 9:26-27). Paul needs Barnabas as a character reference to vouch for the authenticity of his conversion.

(2) Paul defensively and vehemently denying that he saw any other apostle but Peter on his first trip to Jerusalem: "In what I am writing you, before God I'm not lying (Gal. 1:20)!" Why would anyone think he's lying about this? Apparently because Paul must labor under the perception that he is not a real apostle like the 12 because he had never been discipled by the historical Jesus. Remember, resurrection appearances only lasted 40 days (Acts 1:3). Paul's later vision of Jesus as a blinding light would for many not count as a resurrection appearance. So he feels the need to defend the authenticity of his apostleship.

(3) On his 2nd visit to Jerusalem Paul defensively insists he went up there "by revelation (2:2)" to discourage the impression he was summoned there for an investigation of his theological soundness. Irked by the perception of an apostolic inquisition, Paul defensively insists, "Those leaders contributed nothing to me (2:6)!" Highly defensive, he takes this peevish shot at the Jerusalem church leaders, "What they actually were makes no difference to me (2:5)."

(4) Paul's perceived rivalry with other apostles can make him boastfully defensive: "I think I'm not in the least inferior to these super-apostles!... Are they ministers of Christ?...I am a better one--with far greater labors (2 Cor. 11:5, 23)!

marks: "You're getting something entirely different from the account than what I'm seeing. Barnabas was stumbled by Peter, led away with their dissembling."

Nope! Peter and Barnabas were right and Paul was wrong! A Jewish Christian leadership team ("men from James," Jesus' brother) came to investigate the spiritual progress of the church at Antioch. This faction of Jerusalem's Torah-observant Jewish Christian church was Torah-observant and obeyed the laws against table fellowship with Gentiles. Peter and Barnabas were simply empathized with their scruples and TEMPORARILY withdrew from table fellowship with Gentiles so as not to offend these Jewish Christian visitors, whereas Paul was insensitive to their needs.
Paul would have been well served to follow his own practice elsewhere: "To the Jews I became as a Jew that I might win over Jews (1 Cor. 9:20

 

[Brakelite]

marks: "(no Barnabas [in Gal. 1:15-19])...Where is Paul defensive? Seeking approval?

(1) In Galatians 1-2 Paul defensively leaves out his need for Barnabas to accompany him on this his first trip to Jerusalem (Acts 9:26-27). Paul needs Barnabas as a character reference to vouch for the authenticity of his conversion.

(2) Paul defensively and vehemently denying that he saw any other apostle but Peter on his first trip to Jerusalem: "In what I am writing you, before God I'm not lying (Gal. 1:20)!" Why would anyone think he's lying about this? Apparently because Paul must labor under the perception that he is not a real apostle like the 12 because he had never been discipled by the historical Jesus. Remember, resurrection appearances only lasted 40 days (Acts 1:3). Paul's later vision of Jesus as a blinding light would for many not count as a resurrection appearance. So he feels the need to defend the authenticity of his apostleship.

(3) On his 2nd visit to Jerusalem Paul defensively insists he went up there "by revelation (2:2)" to discourage the impression he was summoned there for an investigation of his theological soundness. Irked by the perception of an apostolic inquisition, Paul defensively insists, "Those leaders contributed nothing to me (2:6)!" Highly defensive, he takes this peevish shot at the Jerusalem church leaders, "What they actually were makes no difference to me (2:5)."

(4) Paul's perceived rivalry with other apostles can make him boastfully defensive: "I think I'm not in the least inferior to these super-apostles!... Are they ministers of Christ?...I am a better one--with far greater labors (2 Cor. 11:5, 23)!

marks: "You're getting something entirely different from the account than what I'm seeing. Barnabas was stumbled by Peter, led away with their dissembling."

Nope! Peter and Barnabas were right and Paul was wrong! A Jewish Christian leadership team ("men from James," Jesus' brother) came to investigate the spiritual progress of the church at Antioch. This faction of Jerusalem's Torah-observant Jewish Christian church was Torah-observant and obeyed the laws against table fellowship with Gentiles. Peter and Barnabas were simply empathized with their scruples and TEMPORARILY withdrew from table fellowship with Gentiles so as not to offend these Jewish Christian visitors, whereas Paul was insensitive to their needs.
Paul would have been well served to follow his own practice elsewhere: "To the Jews I became as a Jew that I might win over Jews (1 Cor. 9:20

Were you also trained by Jesuits? There's more deviousness and twisting and spurious accusations going on here against Paul than the charades that were enacted against Catholic enemies during the inquisitions. Funny you should have mentioned that.

 

[Berserk]

Were you also trained by Jesuits? There's more deviousness and twisting and spurious accusations going on here against Paul than the charades that were enacted against Catholic enemies during the inquisitions. Funny you should have mentioned that.

Funny you must resort to insults to mask your inability to get into the Word with me and discuss the cited texts! This just in--Jesus was sinless, but Paul was not. But I still find the revealed Word of God in Paul's epistles.

 

[Brakelite]

Funny you must resort to insults to mask your inability to get into the Word with me and discuss the cited texts! This just in--Jesus was sinless, but Paul was not. But I still find the revealed Word of God in Paul's epistles.

Nah,
I'm not playing the game. Just burn me.

 

[Taken]

Christ is not the head of a perpetually-splintering gaggle of doctrinally-divided groups and millions of "Lone Ranger" agents like yourself.
He us the Head of ONE Body - ONE Church.

Christ’s Church is not a World mystery, nor is Christ’s Church owned or exclusively represented by the ever wavering secretive Catholic Church.

As for your last bit of nonsense - in your usual hypocritical stule - you never learn that the peoblem is FAR worse in your Protrdtant sects.
It's been largely eradicated in the Catholic Church . . .

You are simply a self-appointed unimpressive player in the long standing history of the hyperbole rhetoric of the catholic church.

You repeatedly claim pride in the centuries long catholic organization, while dissing protesters of catholic underhandedness, and casually imply the underhandedness the protesters protested against the catholic organization has been largely eradicated.
Wake up man...
Eradication is to Stop what is not Acceptable.
Yielding is to Change the Rules to make what is Not Acceptable; Acceptable!
....Not News...the catholic organization for centuries has hidden secrets, has had secrets exposed, has denied, has splintered, changed the rules, yielded to the unacceptable, and continue the pride of all in agreement to yield to the unacceptable.
...What is comical News...is your failure to see the IRONY.

Tit for Tat child’s play, when your own porch is dirty, is irrelevant.

 

[Taken]

NOWHERE does Scripture make this claim - as YOU have repeatedly failed to produce the verse..

You have been shown Scripture is Sufficient, adequate, profitable, valuable, advantageous....
Your failure to Comprehend is your problem, not mine.
Your constant rhetoric Against Scripture is your burden, not mine.

 

[BreadOfLife]

As to the sufficiency of scripture...

KJV Isaiah 8:20
20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
KJV Luke 16:31
31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.
KJV Luke 24:44
44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

And to the insufficiency of man...

KJV Psalms 118:9
9 It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in princes.
KJV Proverbs 30:5-6
5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
KJV John 15:5
5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.

Ummmmm, first of all - the Scripture that is being referred to - if ANY, is the OT - and NONE of these verses ewven implies that the Scriptures (that qhich is written) is sufficient.

When the OT speaks of the "Law and the Prophets" - it is describing BOTH Scripture AND Tradition. For you to insist that it ONLY means the Scriptures is a fallacy that any Jew or 1st Year Bible student would debunk.

Bottom lime: The fallacy that the Bible claims that the Bible is ALL you need is a lie that is only as old as your Protestant rebellion.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Christ’s Church is not a World mystery, nor is Christ’s Church owned or exclusively represented by the ever wavering secretive Catholic Church.

You are simply a self-appointed unimpressive player in the long standing history of the hyperbole rhetoric of the catholic church.

You repeatedly claim pride in the centuries long catholic organization, while dissing protesters of catholic underhandedness, and casually imply the underhandedness the protesters protested against the catholic organization has been largely eradicated.
Wake up man...
Eradication is to Stop what is not Acceptable.
Yielding is to Change the Rules to make what is Not Acceptable; Acceptable!
....Not News...the catholic organization for centuries has hidden secrets, has had secrets exposed, has denied, has splintered, changed the rules, yielded to the unacceptable, and continue the pride of all in agreement to yield to the unacceptable.
...What is comical News...is your failure to see the IRONY.

Tit for Tat child’s play, when your own porch is dirty, is irrelevant.

TRANSLATION:
"How DARE you expose the idiocy of our hypocritical accusations of sexual misconduct within the Church!! You're NOT supposed to bring that up!

Sorry dude . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

You have been shown Scripture is Sufficient, adequate, profitable, valuable, advantageous....
Your failure to Comprehend is your problem, not mine.
Your constant rhetoric Against Scripture is your burden, not mine.

That Scripture is "profitable" ot authoritative is not the issue.

The idea that it is ALL we need is simply a 16th century Protestant invention thaat has ZERO basis in the very Scriptures that YOU puport to be our "Sole" Authority.

YOU and the others have failed to produce the evidence - but don't feel too bad.
Smarter people than you have been failing at this for 500 years . . .

 

[Taken]

TRANSLATION

LOL, per usual you speaking for others is a fail.

 

[Taken]

That Scripture is "profitable" ot authoritative is not the issue.

The idea that it is ALL we need is simply a 16th century Protestant invention thaat has ZERO basis in the very Scriptures that YOU puport to be our "Sole" Authority.

YOU and the others have failed to produce the evidence - but don't feel too bad.
Smarter people than you have been failing at this for 500 years . . .

Your consistent rejection of Scripture and Advocation of Philosophies of men, is old and boring. Yawn.
There was no “16th century Protestant invention” <—- LOL as you claim.
However there was a beginning rise and continuing rise in LITERACY!

Stop your old worn out accusations and whining...Some people Choose to take advantage of Reading Scripture for themselves, rather than be (like you) robotically trained to sit and be indoctrinated by generations of Philosophical men dictating what to believe.

 

[marks]

marks: "You're getting something entirely different from the account than what I'm seeing. Barnabas was stumbled by Peter, led away with their dissembling."

Nope! Peter and Barnabas were right and Paul was wrong! A Jewish Christian leadership team ("men from James," Jesus' brother) came to investigate the spiritual progress of the church at Antioch. This faction of Jerusalem's Torah-observant Jewish Christian church was Torah-observant and obeyed the laws against table fellowship with Gentiles. Peter and Barnabas were simply empathized with their scruples and TEMPORARILY withdrew from table fellowship with Gentiles so as not to offend these Jewish Christian visitors, whereas Paul was insensitive to their needs.
Paul would have been well served to follow his own practice elsewhere: "To the Jews I became as a Jew that I might win over Jews (1 Cor. 9:20

Is this part true?

Galatians 2:11 LITV
11) But when Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was to be blamed.

For me I say it is. Peter was in fact in the wrong. Not because I think he was, but because my Bible says he was.

Galatians 2:13-14 LITV
13) And also the rest of the Jews dissembled with him, so as even Barnabas was led away with their dissembling.
14) But when I saw that they did not walk uprightly with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before all, If you being a Jew, live heathen-like, and not as the Jews, why do you compel the nations to Judaize?

Dissembled, are you familiar with the meaning here? "Act hypocritically"

Paul described their actions as "that they did not walk uprightly with the truth of the gospel". Do you not accept that this is true?

This encounter is not given for purient interest, it forms the prelude to the teaching about faith and justification that follows.

A key phrase here is, "Why do you compel the nations to Judaize?" Barnabas seems to have been perhaps questioning whether he really DID need to start keeping Jewish law.

Much love!

 

[Berserk]

SUPERIOR CATHOLIC POWER TO FULFILL THE GREAT COMMISSION: "THEY SHALL CAST OUT DEMONS."
For me, the most impressive aspect of the Catholic doctrine of apostolic succession is the awesome contrast between the unique power and success of exorcist priests versus the relative ineptness of deliverance ministries from Taken's Fundamentalist tradition. I know a family whose son with a secret opioid addiction got demonically oppressed through fear elicited by watching the horror movie "Paranormal" with friends. The demonic oppression was accompanied by paranormal phenomena like a supernatural light in the closet when the lights of the bedroom were off and the ripping off of the boy's blankets in the middle of the night by an unseen hand. Being evangelical, the family summoned an evangelical deliverance team to expel the demon, but this team proved in effective. So in desperation, the family called the local Catholic bishop to send a trained exorcist. The mild-mannered Nigerian priest who showed up immediately took charge of the demon in Christ's name and the problem was solved.

An even more paranormal possession case in Georgetown was made into the famous horror movie "The Exorcist." The possessed boy levitated, caused furniture to move around the room by an unseen hand, and, though just a young boy, had supernatural strength. An evangelical exorcist summoned to deal with the problem was ineffective and badly injured by the young demoniac; so in desperation this Protestant family called the local bishop, who sent Father Bowdern to perform the exorcism. After initial frustration, Father Bowdern realized that the boy might be helped by converting to Catholicism, so that he could be served Catholic Communion. The demon defiantly said, "There is one word which can release this boy, but I will never let him say it. That word proved to be "Dominus," the Latin word for "Lord" spoken during Catholic Latin rites. [This exorcism was performed in the late 1940s when the Mass was still in Latin.] After great struggles, the boy finally owned Jesus as his "Dominus" and was released in an explosion accompanied by blue light which was heard in a church service across the street.

So why do Catholic priests often demonstrate more power over Satan than their evangelical counterparts? Evangelical deliverance teams come to the demonically oppressed and possessed representing themselves as individual Christians. Catholic exorcists are trained by the Church and represent the power of apostolic succession through their appointment by the local bishop to deal with the demonic.

 

[Marymog]

"He who is not against us is on our side.”

You wrote an entire book.....thousands of words I presume....about Einstein but you can't answer a simple question?

Let's try again: When 65 Protestants agrees with The Church they are "collaborators"! What are they if they agree with YOU?

 

[Marymog]

LOL....I responded to your “unfocused” statement. LOL

LOL...no you didn't...lol....but that is par for the course...lol

 

[Taken]

LOL...no you didn't...lol....but that is par for the course...lol

Typical blathering carnal nonsense. Pfff

 

[Berserk]

You wrote an entire book.....thousands of words I presume....about Einstein but you can't answer a simple question?

Let's try again: When 65 Protestants agrees with The Church they are "collaborators"! What are they if they agree with YOU?

Those 65 Protestant scholars just spoke for the modern scholarly consensus, secular and Christian, as evident from the majority views of professors who attend the largest and most prestigious Bible conference in the world, the annual meetings of The Society of Biblical Literature. Scott A. on the other hand is trapped in a theologically uneducated, myopic Fundamentalist Ghetto, whose intellectually suffocating atmosphere makes it impossible to breathe the fresh air of honest and open inquiry.