Bible alone

[Brakelite]

Odolatry is the woeship of someone or something other than God.
Provide documented evidence that a Pope had worshipped someone or something other than Geod.

Himself.

 

[Illuminator]

Okay here's the bottom line, what else do I need outside of the Bible to be saved (another subject as most don't know what they're saved from) ?

Salvation is not the issue here. You have no answer to the question. Wasn’t the requirement of baptism already firmly fixed in the life and belief of the churches before the New Testament was written? Yes! But you think the 1st century Christians practiced Baptism by reading the New Testament. You can't see how absurd your position is.

Whenever Christ addressed those higher critics , what was His question ?

Have ye not read , read what ? His word ,which was the Old Testament at that time .

Are you saying the Old Testament is the sole rule of faith? Another absurdity. Whenever Jesus referred to the Old Testament, He explained what it meant, He didn't let the Scriptures speak for themselves! If you bother to check your Bible and see the verses Jesus was referring to, none of them support sola scriptura.

Where were the traditions in the Old Testament

The Passover Seder, the Tradition Jesus and His family practiced annually.

What is being spoken of below ?

Colossians 2:8 "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ:"

Bad traditions of men does not automatically rule out the good traditions Paul commands us to follow. Equating the two does violence to everything Paul wrote on the matter.

ANYTHING outside of scripture is the opinion of man (tradition) or whatever else you wanna call it, period.

Creating a false dichotomy between scripture and tradition is a man made tradition in itself. It's also the result of brain damage caused by sola scriptura because it blinds you from the true nature of Tradition. You simply cannot comprehend it, like you cannot answer my question: Wasn’t the requirement of baptism already firmly fixed in the life and belief of the churches before the New Testament was written?
Yes, and the overwhelming evidence is there for anyone who wishes to see it.

 

[Illuminator]

Many Protestants (especially anti-Catholic ones) hold, by and large, the view that Scripture and sacred, apostolic tradition are somehow unalterably opposed to each other and, for all practical purposes, mutually exclusive. This is yet another example of a false dichotomy which Protestantism often (unfortunately) tends to create (e.g., faith vs. works, matter vs. spirit). The Bible, however, presupposes tradition as an entity prior to and larger than itself, from which it is derived, not as some sort of “dirty word.”

It is one thing to wrongly assert that Catholic tradition (the beliefs and dogmas which the Church claims to have preserved intact passed down from Christ and the apostles) is corrupt, excessive and unbiblical. It is quite another to think that the very concept of tradition is contrary to the outlook of the Bible and pure, essential Christianity. This is, broadly speaking, a popular and widespread variant of the distinctive Protestant viewpoint of sola Scriptura, or “Scripture Alone,” which was one of the rallying cries of the Protestant Revolt in the 16th century. It remains the supreme principle of authority, or “rule of faith” for evangelical Protestants today. Sola Scriptura by its very nature tends to pit tradition against the Bible.

First of all, one might also loosely define tradition as the authoritative and authentic Christian history of theological doctrines and devotional practices. Christianity, like Judaism before it, is fundamentally grounded in history: in the earth-shattering historical events in the life of Jesus Christ (the incarnation, miracles, crucifixion, resurrection, ascension, etc.). Eyewitnesses (Lk 1:1-2, Acts 1:1-3, 2 Pet 1:16-18) communicated these true stories to the first Christians, who in turn passed them on to other Christians (under the guidance of the Church’s authority) down through the ages. Therefore, Christian tradition, defined as authentic Church history, is unavoidable.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davea...ty,derived, not as some sort of “dirty word.”

 

[Illuminator]

WRONG, Einstein.

- The Synod of Rome (382) is where the canon was first formally identified – ALL 73 (not 66) Books.

It should be noted that a 66 book canon used as a Bible did not exist before the 14th century. Until I see evidence to the contrary, I can safely conclude that a 66 book Bible is a man made tradition.

 

[Illuminator]

I am in your debt.
Now that we have established that you prefer a revisionist history to reality,

Nonsense.

there is clearly nothing to be gained by either you or I wasting any time reading posts based on alternative realities.

More nonsense. Objective truth cannot be subjective. Your reality is infected with relativism.

I reference a medieval scandal in the church that resulted in three men claiming the title of pope at the same time, which split the Church and which resulted in a reformation within the Catholic church and you respond with an angry "taint so".

First, quote me instead of making things up.
Second, the 3 pope scandal occurred BEFORE the Prot. Revolt that resulted in the Western Schism, and you accuse me of historical revisionism? You make me laugh.
Third, the 3 pope scandal has nothing to do with any discussion on this thread, it's just stupid pope bashing.

Some people have a historical objection to the papacy that throws many Catholics for a loop. They will argue that the papacy, which claims to have an unbroken lineage of succession of Popes from St. Peter, was broken during the 14th and 15th centuries. This is known as the "Western Schism" or the period of "Three Popes." The claim is that there were three men all claiming to be the correct successor to St. Peter at once, and that this disproves the notion of an unbroken lineage of successors to St. Peter. Let's analyze this.

Background

The papacy was based in Rome, Italy for centuries until, for a 70 year period, it went to Avignon, France. Once the papacy finally returned home in Rome, however, the people of Italy were afraid that the papacy would return to Avignon again. So, when the Pope died, the people pushed the congregation of Cardinals to elect an Italian as Pope. That way, the papacy would remain in Rome. The Cardinals did just that, and elected Urban VI as Pope.

The First Crazy Complication

Pope Urban VI acted in ways that were not liked by the Cardinals, so, out of buyers remorse, a particular segment of Cardinals disobediently elected their own pope - Clement VII. This new pope became an anti-pope as soon as he was elected, for Urban VI was still functioning as the validly elected Pope. The segment of Cardinals who elected the anti-pope justified their actions by claiming that they were filled with fear when they elected Urban VI. For the Italian people pressured them to elect an Italian. This, it was claimed, made the election of Urban invalid. It was an excuse to get rid of Urban VI, though, for his election was procedurally valid. If Urban had been more liked, then anti-pope Clement would never have been elected. Fear does not undo a valid election. Consider if a voter in a USA election for president was under great anxiety when filling out his ballot. Once the ballot is sent and the votes are tallied - the next president is chosen - regardless of the person's fearfulness.

More Complications

To make matters worse, Cardinals who supported the legitimate papal successor and the illegitimate one formed their own group and elected another anti-pope - Alexander V. This meeting by a group of Cardinals was known as the council of Pisa, and they acted without the authorization of the true Pope. Thus, the council of illegitimate, and another anti-pope was added to the mix. At this point, there were three popes all claiming to be the true papal successor - one True Pope and the two False popes. Many people throughout the Roman empire had no idea which pope was the correct one, and this craziness went on for forty years.

Resolution

Finally, since the situation of crazy Cardinals could not be rectified, the Council of Constance was called. The true Pope stepped down, and a new Pope was elected - Martin V. The Western Schism ended, and Europe could know clearly the Pope to be followed. As seen, there were not three validly elected Popes at one time. The succession of the papal office from St. Peter remained intact the entire time. There was craziness and confusion throughout Europe, certainly, but it was due to the stupidity of the 'buyers-remorse' Cardinals! This historical objection to the papacy can safely be thrown away.
https://www.stpeterinstitute.com/post/the-three-popes

Carry on without me, I have no interest in anything you have to say. Enjoy the Kool-aid.

Gladly. I have no interest in your childish baseless insults.

 

[theefaith]

Matthew 23:1-9, "Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, “The experts in the law and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat. Therefore pay attention to what they tell you and do it. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they teach. They tie up heavy loads, hard to carry, and put them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing even to lift a finger to move them. They do all their deeds to be seen by people, for they make their phylacteries wide and their tassels long. They love the place of honor at banquets and the best seats in the synagogues and elaborate greetings in the marketplaces, and to have people call them ‘Rabbi.’ But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher and you are all brothers. And call no one your ‘father’ on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven."

Transposing this to the present time, this is an excellent description of the practices of the Catholic denomination!!!

They create all kinds of rules and rituals that be followed by the Catholic "sheep". They have huge, ornate buildings and fancy garb to fool the gullible into thinking they have authority, and love to be honored by those same gullible "sheep". They love to be called "father", directly contradicting the teaching of Jesus.

When and if the Catholic denomination ever follows Scripture I will pay attention to what they teach, but until that time comes...

Sola scriptura!!!!

the point here is that they had the authority and MUST BE OBEYED!

there persons not scripture

and this authority was taken from them Matt 21:43 and given to Peter and the apostles Matt 16:18-19 18:18 Lk 22:19 Matt 28:19 Jn 20:21 eph 2:20 etc.

So submit and obey!

obedience to the apostles is obedience to Christ!

 

[Berserk]

Marine: "The popes like all the other lemmings worshipped Mary and depended on her to take their requests to Jesus, which she cannot do."

So you actually consider the line "Take It to the Lord in prayer" in the old evangelical hymn "What a Friend We Have in Jesus" is heresy?

n2thelight: "What may I ask did Christ refer to when He said have ye not read ?"

Well, the Dead Sea scrolls have our biblical books, including fragments of Sirach, which the Catholic apocrypha contains; and Jesus alludes to Sirach in Matthew 6:14:

"If you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you (Matthew 6:14)."
"Forgive your neighbor the wrong he has done, and then your sins will be pardoned when you pray (Sirach 28:2)."

Indeed, Sirach is the source of inspiration for the related petition in the Lord's Prayer. Every book in our Protestant OT is considered Scripture by Jesus, but we can't say that Jesus limits Scripture to our OT canon.

 

[BreadOfLife]

So you don't trust His Word , and are you saying the traditions of man decided what would be ?

Mark 13:23 "But take ye heed: behold, I have foretold you all things."

Again what didn't He tell us that's not written ?What did He tell Catholics that He didn't tell anybody else ?

And there you go LYING again.

Not only did I NEVER say that the Canon of Scripture was a “Tradition of men” – I explicitly stated that it was revealed to the Church by GOD.
This is the promise of Christ:

John 16:12-15
“I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into ALL TRUTH, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.

So – if you can stop LYING for 5 minutes – MAYBE we can have an intelligent conversation . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Where is this oral word , please share ,I mean something

Apparently, you haven’t been READING the posts – because I have repeatedly given you examples of Oral Tradition. Not only did I give you the examples of the writings of the Early Church UNANIMOUSLY testifying to the fact that Infant Baptism was handed down to them by the Apostles – the following are ALL examples of Oral Tradition:

Matt. 2:23 - the prophecy "He shall be a Nazarene" is ORAL TRADITION. It is not found in the Old Testament. This demonstrates that the apostles relied upon oral tradition and taught by oral tradition.

Matt 23:2 - Jesus relies on the ORAL TRADITION of acknowledging Moses' seat of authority (which passed from Moses to Joshua to the Sanhedrin). This is not recorded in the Old Testament.

1 Cor. 10:4 - Paul relies on the ORAL TRADITION of the rock following Moses. It is not recorded in the Old Testament.

2 Timothy 3:8 - Paul relies on the ORAL TRADITION when speaking of Pharoah’s magicians, Jannes and Jambres. Their names are not recorded in the Old Testament.

Jude 9 - Jude relies on the ORAL TRADITION of the Archangel Michael's dispute with Satan over Moses' body. This is not found in the Old Testament.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Himself.
View attachment 24325

That’s your opinion, not a documented FACT – and you KNOW what they say about opinions . . .

WHY is it that you guys can make false accusations with th ease in which you draw breath – but when you are asked to substantiate it – you FAIL??

Don’t you fear GOD, who commands you:
Thou SHALL NOT bear false witness (Exod. 20:16)??

 

[BreadOfLife]

The popes like all the other lemmings worshipped Mary and depended on her to take their requests to Jesus, which she cannot do.

And once again, you FAILED.

I asked you to give me documented evidence that the Pope “WORSHIPS” somebody other than God – and in your abject ignorance and dishonesty, you fell flat on your face.

Good job, Einstein . . .

 

[Marine0311]

And once again, you FAILED.

I asked you to give me documented evidence that the Pope “WORSHIPS” somebody other than God – and in your abject ignorance and dishonesty, you fell flat on your face.

Good job, Einstein . . .

 

[Marine0311]

The fail is your inability to deal honestly with the idolatry in your cult.

 

[Jim B]

As I have said repeatedly, the focus of the Catholic denomination is clearly not the focus of the New Testament: Jesus Christ. Their clergy directs them to everything but...

the adoration of Mary, a minor figure in the New Testament
the depiction of Jesus as dead on the cross, denying the resurrection
the establishment of a clergy, from the unScriptural Pope on down
the primacy of Peter, whom Scripture says was the apostle to the Jews only
calling their priest "father", which Scripture clearly forbids
the fleecing of their adherents to build and maintain ornate structures (resembling the OT temple concept)
worshiping and praying to dead people: Mary and their "saints"
claiming that their denomination is "the one true church", even though "catholic" is not mentioned in Scripture
etc., etc., etc.

Catholicism is clearly and obviously a cult built on the false teachings of men. The truth of the Bible is clearly ignored!

Sola scriptura!

 

[atpollard]

God is the father of our salvation so yes direct your prayers to God thru the intercession of the queen! 1 kings 2:19

abraham is the father of faith

I ask for a statement from an Apostle, and you respond with the adulteress Bathsheba and the whore-monger Solomon as an example of why we should all be praying to Mary rather than God ... how apropos.

 

[atpollard]

whst happened to Lk 18:13 And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.

He prayed to God ... just like Jesus taught. :)

 

[atpollard]

Hey were the first leaders – and, as we read in Acts 1:20 0 their Bishoprics were successive.
Jesus was not an idiot who would only make this promise ONLY to the Twelve only to forget His Church after they were gone.

Why do you bother to reference scriptures that do not say what you claim they say?

Acts of the Apostles 1:20

“For it is written in the book of Psalms:
‘MAY HIS RESIDENCE BE MADE DESOLATE,
AND MAY THERE BE NONE LIVING IN IT’;
and,
‘MAY ANOTHER TAKE HIS OFFICE.’​

• Notice that that verse DOES NOT SAY "their Bishoprics were successive." ... it does not imply it ... it does not suggest it ... it does not HINT at the possibility.
• At best, it says that one new apostle must replace Judas (which is how the 11 Apostles interpreted it) ... however more Apostles were martyred almost immediately and they did not draw lots and lay hands to replace those Apostles, did they? The "son of perdition" was unique.

 

[atpollard]

ONE more time:
The Canon of Scripture was a Tradition declared by the Catholic Church in 383..
This was a revelation from the Holy Spirit to the CHURCH.

The writings of the Early Church yestify UNANIMOUSY regarding child and INFANT Baptism as a practice handed down by the Apostles. Scripture is SILENT ont this.

So, tell me – how is it that virtually EVERY Early Church Father taught this if it was NOT in Scripture and the Catholic Church was supposedly NOT even established until the 4th century, as many of you claim??

You guys dig yourselves into a deeper and deeper hole with every moronic attack againjst the Church.

Non sequitur.
You were claiming to have oral wisdom from Saint Paul heard in Thessalonica, but you refuse to share this oral wisdom.

Paul said none of what you wrote above (which contradicts HIS writings).

 

[atpollard]

No – SCRIPTURE doesn’t support the false, 16th century, man-made invention that the authority of Scripture is adequate.

It has already been shown that Paul in the First Century wrote to Timothy explaining that Scripture is adequate.
Both your timeline and your facts are off.

The 16th Century was just a European return to Biblical Truth and a rejection of Roman apostasy (triggered by people finally able to read what God wrote through the Apostles) ... as the rest of Christianity had rejected Roman apostasy in the 11th Century.

 

[atpollard]

Every book in our Protestant OT is considered Scripture by Jesus, but we can't say that Jesus limits Scripture to our OT canon.

Matthew 23:35
Luke 11:51

(holds the key)