own spiritual understanding.....i suppose the it will be equally valid to understand scripture from a JW own spiritual understanding

I never indicated that.
What I am trying to say is that one's interpretation of scriptures should not be limited to a particular denomination biasness.

And JW is not recognize because their central doctrines differ to the central theme.

Precisely. Everyone understands it as his own...aka...go and start a new denom..

If you go to a particular denom, it means you subscribe to that denom's official teachings. It's as plain as that. If not, go and start your own since you have your own understanding of scripture.

You've said it...his view (whether true or not, not the subject here). But there is no mention anywhere the intention to bind the Catholic faithful saying that any of his personal views are infallible.

This post has been edited by yeeck: Apr 13 2016, 04:28 PM

5 Facts to Ignore Before Accusing Catholics of “Mary Worship”
GARY ZIMAK

I love the Blessed Mother! There…I said it and I’m glad I did! As a Catholic, I’m so blessed to be a member of the Church that truly honors and respects the Mother of my Lord and Savior. I must admit that, even though I’m a cradle Catholic, I didn’t always feel this way. In fact, for most of my life I didn’t understand Mary’s role or care about her too much. What a mistake! Now, after several recent accusations of “Mary worship” on my Facebook page, it’s time to stand up for my “Mom”. And, even though I love her and want to defend her honor, I have no intention of getting nasty. Rather, I’d prefer to present 5 facts about Mary. Before you accuse Catholics of worshiping Mary, I ask you to take a long hard look at these facts. They have a way of poking holes in the theory that we place too much emphasis on Mary. If you still want to accuse Catholics of worshiping Mary, then I suggest you ignore these facts!

1. God Sent The Savior Through Mary – I list this one first because it’s really tough to downplay Mary’s importance while acknowledging that the long awaiting Messiah came to earth by being born of a woman…and that woman was Mary. Out of all the ways that Jesus could have come to earth, why was Mary chosen? If Mary was important to God, shouldn’t she mean something to us?

2. Jesus Performed His First Miracle At Mary’s Request – This is another good one. Oh I know, Jesus didn’t need Mary to turn the water into wine at Cana. She just happened to be there. OK, why then did St. John list Mary FIRST in his list of wedding guests?

On the third day there was a marriage at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there; Jesus also was invited to the marriage with His disciples. (John 2:1-2)

If Mary is not important in this saga, why is she listed BEFORE the apostles and BEFORE Jesus? St. John the Evangelist was not known for inserting extraneous details. Mary is listed first because John wants to call the readers’ attention to her presence at the wedding.

But what about “the rebuke”? You know, the argument that Jesus was telling Mary to “butt out” when He stated:

“O woman, what have you to do with me? My hour has not yet come.” (John 2:4)

Jesus was a devout Jew and an obedient follower of the Ten Commandments. Why would He publicly dishonor His mother in violation of the Fourth Commandment? Secondly, if this was such a “put down” by Jesus, why did He go ahead and perform the miracle of changing water into wine? Wouldn’t that have been the end of the request. Of course it would, unless He wasn’t putting Mary down. When His mother interceded on behalf of the couple, Our Lord decided that His time had now come. Don’t you think Jesus is trying to tell us something? Isn’t is probable that Jesus waited until Mary’s request, in order to show us her intercessory power? Doesn’t that explain why St. John listed her first among the guests?

3. Jesus Gave Mary To John From The Cross – As He suffered and died on the Cross, Jesus made a very profound statement:

When Jesus saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing near, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son!” Then He said to the disciple, “Behold your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home. (John 19:26-27)

Why, while struggling to speak as He hung on the Cross, would Jesus have spoken these words if they didn’t mean anything? Could He have been making small talk? Obviously, there was a reason that Our Lord did what He did. The Church has always believed that John represented each member of the Church and that, from that moment on, Mary became our spiritual mother. Scripture tells us that, on that day John accepted Jesus’ gift and “took her to his own home” (John 19:27). Shouldn’t we do the same?

4. Jesus’ First Graces Were Given Through Mary – This is a fact that frequently gets overlooked by those who wish to downplay Mary’s importance…and it comes straight from the Bible! After accepting God’s offer to become the Mother of the Savior, Mary traveled “in haste” to visit her relative, Elizabeth.

And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the child leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. (Luke 1:41)

According to this Bible passage, before Jesus was even born, Mary’s voice was used to deliver the graces to Elizabeth. Why? Because she’s not important? Isn’t there some other way, these graces could have been dispensed?

Not convinced? Listen to what Elizabeth had to say (also directly from the Bible)…

“For behold, when the voice of your greeting came to my ears, the child in my womb leaped for joy.” (Luke 1:44)

It’s pretty hard to deny the importance of Mary’s presence and voice in dispensing these graces to Elizabeth. Did the graces originate from Mary? No, they obviously came from Jesus. However, He chose to have Mary make the journey and use her voice to deliver them. Why? Because He wants us to realize that she is important!

5. Jesus Christ Is The Sole Mediator Between God And Man – Now, this doesn’t make sense. How does this help to support the Catholic position? This is why we Catholics “have it all wrong”, isn’t it? Sorry if I’m bursting anyone’s bubble, but Catholics absolutely believe that Jesus Christ is the sole mediator between God and man. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) clearly states this belief:

Intercession is a prayer of petition which leads us to pray as Jesus did. He is the one intercessor with the Father on behalf of all men, especially sinners. (CCC 2634)

This Catholic teaching is supported by the following Bible passage:

For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all. (1 Timothy 2:5-6)

Although Jesus Christ is the sole mediator between God and man, that doesn’t preclude others (including Mary) from being involved in a subordinate mediation, or intercession. Saint Paul, who made the above statement, is obviously aware of that fact since he several times urges his readers to pray for each other (Romans 1:9, 1 Thessalonians 5:25, 1 Timothy 2:1). The Catechism refers to this type of intercession as being a “participation in the intercession of Christ” (CCC 2635) and is put into practice each time we pray for one another. Asking Mary to intercede for us in no way takes away from Jesus’ role as mediator between God and men.

While I’m not naive enough to think that listing these 5 facts will render me immune from further accusations of “Mary worship”, I do think that they will have an effect if looked at with an open mind. Sacred Scripture does not contain a lot of words about Mary, but what’s there is powerful. Theologians have spent 2,000 years studying her Biblical appearances and will continue to do so. We can learn much by studying Mary’s role as documented in the pages of the Bible. If anyone wants to accuse me of being a “Mary worshiper”, I ask you to first look at these 5 facts. If you still want to point a finger, you’ll need to ignore these factual statements…because accepting them will seriously undermine your credibility!

As I have said, the main positional statement of all of the denominations are same or similar.
There are of course differences in certain doctrines like the calvinist vs armenian view. The various views of eschatology. Understanding of baptism., etc.
But then having differing opinion does not mean that you cannot be a member of that denomination of church.

If a church member has to follow the official teachings of that denomination, why read the bible then. Just read the official teachings prescribe by the church.

It's not unusual for church members to have disagreements on certain doctrines. In fact it is probably healthy as it prevents the pastor from introducing concepts that are foreign to the main theme of the scripture as the pastor could be scrutinized if he introduces weird teachings.

When someone does not question the leaders of an organization, it is very easy for corruption to enter.

If a church member objects to the official teachings of a church, in principle, he should quit that church. I'm not talking about things done by individuals not related to the official teaching of a particular denom.

To be honest, are you really lying about your protestant background or you learnt zero while you were at the protestant church?

The apostolic creed is as follows
I believe in God, the father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.
He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.
He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again.
He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Holy Catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.

Dun tell me you dun have a clue about this.

This is the official creed that is followed in 95% of the mainline denomination.

The denominations may differ with each other in other doctrines but then they generally agree with this.

There is no issue with anyone entering any non catholic church if they hold to the creed above. They may have differences in other doctrines but this will not stop this person from becoming a church member.

Of course there may be cases whereby certain doctrines are regarded as crucial and which the members have to participate in for example in the case of infant baptism. If say a member of a church do not believe in infant baptism in a church that practice infant baptism, he should not remain in that church. But most protestant or non catholic churches I know do not believe in infant baptism.

There may be certain churches that demands that it's member confirm to certain other doctrines besides the apostle creed before allowing them to be a member but this is very rare. What I know is that yes, there are certain church that is very reformed in nature. Reformed theology is huge and does not include just calvanism. They probably encourage their members to hold to reformed theology but then they do not insist that they do so as long as the members hold to the creed above.

It seems that you have totally forgotten of your protestant background which you claim that you were once very passionate about. Did you really forget or it's just convenient?

I apologize for not making myself clear. I am not talking about official position but the theological differences associated with each denomination.

This post has been edited by sylar111: Apr 13 2016, 05:27 PM

This post has been edited by yeeck: Apr 13 2016, 05:27 PM

[quote=yeeck,Apr 13 2016, 05:26 PM]
>> Oh wow...so this part is worthless to you. I learnt something new today about Protestant respect of the Bible.

Your lying spirit is at hand right now. And it is so obvious. I have never ever indicated that verse is not important. All I ever indicated is that the extra things that Jesus did but was not mentioned in scripture was not included was probably not instructive and doctrinal. The fact that you are accusing me of "ignoring" this verse tells me that you have the habit of "ignoring" many verses as well. I even stated the issue at hand which shows that I take every verse of the bible seriously. You did not even bother stating the exact part you are talking about indicating to me that scriptures are never important.

>> I'll let you call me whatever names you want coz it hurts me not, but everything that Jesus did and taught has meaning and instruction for us, be it written in a book or taught to His Apostles by word. That's my point.

>> Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle. (2 Thess 2:15). The verse you quoted above didn't say Scripture alone. Again....alone!

If you read the context(the whole chapter), 2 Thessalonians is speaking of the period of the Anti Christ. A period of deception. Paul is addressing the Thessalonica congregation to hold to the traditions whether by word or by epistles so as not to fall into deception like the rest . It's pretty clear that Paul was telling the church to remain true to the doctrines from the scripture and not to the traditions similar to the one practiced by the catholic church. It's pretty clear that traditions followed by the catholic church does not prevent one from falling into deception.

>> Your fallacy here is that scripture as you know it wasn't even written down yet when Paul wrote that, and that make-up extra of "traditions practiced by the catholic church". I rest my case.

>> Shown above. Not mentioned in this part, doesn't mean it doesn't exist elsewhere.
Traditions as you speak is also rarely shown. And if it is shown, it does not refer to the traditions of the catholic church which you described.

>>Let him who has eyes to read read what has been presented.

>> The Word here refers to Jesus Himself, not a book! And if it's not for the Catholic Church preserving and her monks copying the scriptures [painstakingly by hand, you wouldn't even have scriptures today. Oh, and sorry to inform you that it is the Catholic Church which defined which books are part of Scripture and which aren't.
Shows your understanding. Why is "THE WORD" being used in the first place. "THE WORD" is being used because scripture has always been about Jesus Christ. Everything that has ever been written in scripture speaks of Jesus, even the old testament. So it does imply the Godly nature of scriptures as well. I am not saying that the book itself is Godly. But the message in the book.

>> I don't deny that the whole of scripture is inspired of God, but you miss the point I'm making. Nowhere does the bible says "bible alone", so that makes "bible alone" unbiblical!

Not really. There were a few canons of the new testament and the source of those canons may not come from the catholic church. There's also the Textus Receptus which is being used to translate the KJV which does not really originated from the catholic church.

>> Here's what the scholars who translated the (Protestant) Revised Standard Version had to say about the KJV.

"...the King James Version has grave defects. By the middle of the nineteenth century, the development of Biblical studies and the discovery of many manuscripts more ancient than those upon which the King James Version was based, make it manifest that these defects are so many and so serious as to call for the revision of the English translation" (Preface to the RSV, page xi).

"The King James Version of the New Testament was based upon a Greek text that was married by mistakes, containing the accumulated errors of fourteen centuries of manuscript copying. It was essentially the Greek text of the New Testament as edited by Beza, 1589, who closely followed that published by Erasmus, 1516-1535, which was based upon a few medieval manuscripts. The earliest and best of the eight manuscripts which Erasmus consulted was from the tenth century, and he made the least use of it because it differed most from the commonly received text. Beza had access to two manuscripts of great value dating from the fifth and sixth centuries, but he made very little use of them because they differed from the text published by Erasmus.
We now possess many more ancient manuscripts of the New Testament, and are far better equipped to seek to recover the original wording of the Greek text." (ibid, page xiv).

Source: The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha, Revised Standard Version

I leave it to you for the inference since you have your own understanding.

>> It is not only the Catholics who have a history of atrocities. Those who don't live by the tenets of their faith are legion, be Catholic or non-Catholic. And your point is?
It's ok. Arguing this is a never ending story. But then, the catholic system has always been establish in a way that gives the pope political power. I dun think you can deny this. But then, this is not crucial.

>> The only reason for the pope to have political power is to avoid influence from another political entity. Else it easily becomes a state church, like what the ROC is to Russia, or CoE is to England, or the Patriotic Association is to the PRC.

>> Show me where were these people before the 16th century.
The baptist church has been around during this time.

>> Oh so are you a Baptist? Doesn't believe in infant baptism? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptists originated from the 17th century. My question remains...where are the people before Luther and the rest came.

>> Oh really? Which one? Luther? Lulz
If you brush up on your history which is pretty easy since we have the internet, you would have known that countless of people have died during the reformation period. It's not very difficult. For example the issue with bloody marry who killed thousands of protestants for not converting to catholism. It's laughable that you make the claims that you are seeking the truth when you do not even know something as basic as this.
2 Timothy 3:7
Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

>> Again, you quote an example of a Catholic as example of atrocity contradicting what you said above. I could easily do the same for Elizabeth I, but I don't because it is besides the point.

>> Be specific.
Throughout the scripture, there are many cases whereby Satan used rulers to kill many people to prevent God's purposes from being fulfilled.
In fact even right now, it seems that Satan is having the upper hand.
12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
But in this case, I am referring to Satan's influence through the Catholic church

[/quote]
>> Satan will obviously try to exert his influence everywhere. That I agree. Individuals may fall, but not the Church as a whole. This Christ guarantees it. Will post something up on this later.

[/quote]

Correct me if i'm wrong. Historically the catholic church has fallen times and times again.

-edited-

This post has been edited by sylar111: Apr 13 2016, 05:59 PM

[quote=shioks,Apr 13 2016, 05:28 PM]
>> Satan will obviously try to exert his influence everywhere. That I agree. Individuals may fall, but not the Church as a whole. This Christ guarantees it. Will post something up on this later.

[/quote]

Correct me if i'm wrong. Historically the catholic church has fallen times and times again.

[/quote]
Nope. Individuals fall, never the Church.

[quote=yeeck,Apr 13 2016, 05:26 PM]
>> Oh wow...so this part is worthless to you. I learnt something new today about Protestant respect of the Bible.

Your lying spirit is at hand right now. And it is so obvious. I have never ever indicated that verse is not important. All I ever indicated is that the extra things that Jesus did but was not mentioned in scripture was not included was probably not instructive and doctrinal. The fact that you are accusing me of "ignoring" this verse tells me that you have the habit of "ignoring" many verses as well. I even stated the issue at hand which shows that I take every verse of the bible seriously. You did not even bother stating the exact part you are talking about indicating to me that scriptures are never important.

>> I'll let you call me whatever names you want coz it hurts me not, but everything that Jesus did and taught has meaning and instruction for us, be it written in a book or taught to His Apostles by word. That's my point.

>> Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle. (2 Thess 2:15). The verse you quoted above didn't say Scripture alone. Again....alone!

If you read the context(the whole chapter), 2 Thessalonians is speaking of the period of the Anti Christ. A period of deception. Paul is addressing the Thessalonica congregation to hold to the traditions whether by word or by epistles so as not to fall into deception like the rest . It's pretty clear that Paul was telling the church to remain true to the doctrines from the scripture and not to the traditions similar to the one practiced by the catholic church. It's pretty clear that traditions followed by the catholic church does not prevent one from falling into deception.

>> Your fallacy here is that scripture as you know it wasn't even written down yet when Paul wrote that, and that make-up extra of "traditions practiced by the catholic church". I rest my case.

>> Shown above. Not mentioned in this part, doesn't mean it doesn't exist elsewhere.
Traditions as you speak is also rarely shown. And if it is shown, it does not refer to the traditions of the catholic church which you described.

>>Let him who has eyes to read read what has been presented.

>> The Word here refers to Jesus Himself, not a book! And if it's not for the Catholic Church preserving and her monks copying the scriptures [painstakingly by hand, you wouldn't even have scriptures today. Oh, and sorry to inform you that it is the Catholic Church which defined which books are part of Scripture and which aren't.
Shows your understanding. Why is "THE WORD" being used in the first place. "THE WORD" is being used because scripture has always been about Jesus Christ. Everything that has ever been written in scripture speaks of Jesus, even the old testament. So it does imply the Godly nature of scriptures as well. I am not saying that the book itself is Godly. But the message in the book.

>> I don't deny that the whole of scripture is inspired of God, but you miss the point I'm making. Nowhere does the bible says "bible alone", so that makes "bible alone" unbiblical!

Not really. There were a few canons of the new testament and the source of those canons may not come from the catholic church. There's also the Textus Receptus which is being used to translate the KJV which does not really originated from the catholic church.

>> Here's what the scholars who translated the (Protestant) Revised Standard Version had to say about the KJV.

"...the King James Version has grave defects. By the middle of the nineteenth century, the development of Biblical studies and the discovery of many manuscripts more ancient than those upon which the King James Version was based, make it manifest that these defects are so many and so serious as to call for the revision of the English translation" (Preface to the RSV, page xi).

"The King James Version of the New Testament was based upon a Greek text that was married by mistakes, containing the accumulated errors of fourteen centuries of manuscript copying. It was essentially the Greek text of the New Testament as edited by Beza, 1589, who closely followed that published by Erasmus, 1516-1535, which was based upon a few medieval manuscripts. The earliest and best of the eight manuscripts which Erasmus consulted was from the tenth century, and he made the least use of it because it differed most from the commonly received text. Beza had access to two manuscripts of great value dating from the fifth and sixth centuries, but he made very little use of them because they differed from the text published by Erasmus.
We now possess many more ancient manuscripts of the New Testament, and are far better equipped to seek to recover the original wording of the Greek text." (ibid, page xiv).

Source: The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha, Revised Standard Version

I leave it to you for the inference since you have your own understanding.

>> It is not only the Catholics who have a history of atrocities. Those who don't live by the tenets of their faith are legion, be Catholic or non-Catholic. And your point is?
It's ok. Arguing this is a never ending story. But then, the catholic system has always been establish in a way that gives the pope political power. I dun think you can deny this. But then, this is not crucial.

>> The only reason for the pope to have political power is to avoid influence from another political entity. Else it easily becomes a state church, like what the ROC is to Russia, or CoE is to England, or the Patriotic Association is to the PRC.

>> Show me where were these people before the 16th century.
The baptist church has been around during this time.

>> Oh so are you a Baptist? Doesn't believe in infant baptism? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptists originated from the 17th century. My question remains...where are the people before Luther and the rest came.

>> Oh really? Which one? Luther? Lulz
If you brush up on your history which is pretty easy since we have the internet, you would have known that countless of people have died during the reformation period. It's not very difficult. For example the issue with bloody marry who killed thousands of protestants for not converting to catholism. It's laughable that you make the claims that you are seeking the truth when you do not even know something as basic as this.
2 Timothy 3:7
Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

>> Again, you quote an example of a Catholic as example of atrocity contradicting what you said above. I could easily do the same for Elizabeth I, but I don't because it is besides the point.

>> Be specific.
Throughout the scripture, there are many cases whereby Satan used rulers to kill many people to prevent God's purposes from being fulfilled.
In fact even right now, it seems that Satan is having the upper hand.
12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
But in this case, I am referring to Satan's influence through the Catholic church

>> Satan will obviously try to exert his influence everywhere. That I agree. Individuals may fall, but not the Church as a whole. This Christ guarantees it. Will post something up on this later.


[/quote]

[/quote]

Not necessary. For example, not every detail of every person he healed is beneficial to us from a doctrinal sense. Anyway, you still have not justify the catholic statement that salvation is entirely of God's grace yet. But I believe you no longer can justify that statement anymore. It's speaks volumes of your character when you keep on avoiding this issue at hand. And I do not believe that you forgotten it. You just conveniently swept it under the carpet.

Then again, the traditions mentioned by Paul in that verse is obviously unrelated to the tradition practiced by the Catholic Church. The scripture is still available in the form of the old testament. If the scriptures were not available then how would Acts 17:11 be applicable?

The bible has never ever emphasize on traditions as well. In fact, Jesus always emphasize on the importance of scripture and not on tradition. In fact he put scripture very much above tradition. If tradition was so important, Jesus would have said something about it. But everytime he referred to scripture and not anything else.
I just want to comment on how you avoid answering the real question at hand.

I never mentioned anything about the validity of KJV. I was just proving to you that the source of the scripture does not come solely from Catholicism. Of course, if I were a catholic, I would undermine non catholic sources of scripture. That's a no brainer.

It's impossible to have a a further discussion when you keep shifting fences. But then, you have prove time and time again that truth and integrity does not matter.

About the history of baptist church
http://baptisthistoryhomepage.com/chamberl...s.not.prot.html

About infant Baptism
http://www.baptistbecause.com/Tracts/baptisminfants.htm

I am just giving you an example that's all.

A church do not need to have political power in order to risk being under control to the state as long as if they are principled. There are many examples of non catholic churches right now on this.

This post has been edited by sylar111: Apr 13 2016, 06:36 PM

[quote=yeeck,Apr 13 2016, 05:44 PM]
Correct me if i'm wrong. Historically the catholic church has fallen times and times again.

[/quote]
Nope. Individuals fall, never the Church.

[/quote]

the church buildings not fall. the church falls times and times again.

You are actually putting tradition and church above the Bible.

Book of Revelation 22:18-19 says "I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book. If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

He forgotten that there is the old testament.

Everything that the apostles said are often compared with the scriptures. If the apostles said something that contradicts the scriptures(Old Testament), they will probably not be taken seriously. The old testament and the new testament has to sync. The traditions has to sync with the scripture. But then, in the catholic system, tradition has to be followed even if it does not sync with scripture.

He seems to think that people can just invent the traditions and people just follow those traditions blindly.

This post has been edited by sylar111: Apr 13 2016, 06:40 PM

To be fair, go take a deeper look of what tradition plays in Christianity.

The written Word Of God doesn't appear from thin air, if I was a contemporary of Paul, I would not have a "bible" which I could read at home. I only have the tradition and the faith from which these people have witness. Moreover, there are actually more than 4 gospels, besides Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, many gospels attributed to Peter, Judas, Thomas etc were written and yet only 4 made it into the "bible". Which smart alec decided about these 4 and not the rest?

If Scripture is read without the light of tradition.........then, there will be a lot of things that you shouldn't do...... you must not eat shellfish and if you are a woman, you should stfu.

It's probably apparent to you all that the main beef that muslims have against christians is that the bible is corrupted because it has so many translations and yadda yadda. True that, but they do not realise that christians scripture wasn't a fax from God to one of those apostles, it was a tedious canonisation process guided by tradition, a tradition that spread from word of mouth from the first apostles down to the ones who "decided" on which gospels "get into the bible" This tradition is grounded in that faith and experience that sparked when that jew died and didn't stay dead.

You also have to understand that it was tradition that squashed gnosticism, marcionism, Arianism and other "non-catholic" beliefs. This was a time where there wasn't a bible, how did the christians then "win" the battle when there wasn't an agreed bible to quote from? Why the trinity? and why not Jesus being the love child(as the result of piap piap) of God whom you call as the Father? If I was greek I would by Jesus as a love child of Jehowah...well since zeus has a lot of children.....but what put a stop to this belief?

I only ask that you be fair and study the role played by tradition before accusing "catholics" to be mad. Btw, catholic in Chinese means public...........essentially, it's the public faith. As far as the eastern and oriental orthodoxies are concerned, they agree on the pivotal role that tradition plays. Their dispute with Rome are largely confined to some theological and christological aspects.

The people who have problem with tradition appears to be those who find their roots from Western Christianity, post 1600s.

So be fair and consider, don't let egos get the better of us.

This post has been edited by feynman: Apr 13 2016, 08:57 PM

[quote=sylar111,Apr 13 2016, 05:59 PM]

[/quote]

Not necessary. For example, not every detail of every person he healed is beneficial to us from a doctrinal sense. Anyway, you still have not justify the catholic statement that salvation is entirely of God's grace yet. But I believe you no longer can justify that statement anymore. It's speaks volumes of your character when you keep on avoiding this issue at hand. And I do not believe that you forgotten it. You just conveniently swept it under the carpet.

>> It is of God's grace but the intended recipient is still given the freedom by God to accept or reject it. I repeat it again, we are not robots. Same goes for the angels, who also have freewill. One part decided to reject and became fallen angels, aka demons. There was an example given of a millionair giving free money without conditions, yet the obvious way to get it is to accept the offer and go for it, and not just sit back waiting. Same as the parable of the prodigal son. The prodigal son repented, that is the first grace given by God. But read further that the prodigal son WENT back to his Father's house. What would happen if the prodigal son became did not react to that grace, and fell into despair? Remember what happened to Judas?

Then again, the traditions mentioned by Paul in that verse is obviously unrelated to the tradition practiced by the Catholic Church. The scripture is still available in the form of the old testament. If the scriptures were not available then how would Acts 17:11 be applicable?

>>How would you know it is not related to the Tradition of the Church when it is specifically mentioned? You are correct in saying Acts 17:11 is available in the form of the old testament, but you are obfuscating what I presented. The Bible (or Scripture) as we have it today is comprised of both OT and NT. Who decided on the canon of the NT?

The bible has never ever emphasize on traditions as well. In fact, Jesus always emphasize on the importance of scripture and not on tradition. In fact he put scripture very much above tradition. If tradition was so important, Jesus would have said something about it. But everytime he referred to scripture and not anything else.
I just want to comment on how you avoid answering the real question at hand.
>> Obviously, Jesus referred to the OT since the NT has not existed at that time! The scripture He referred to is obviously the OT!

I never mentioned anything about the validity of KJV. I was just proving to you that the source of the scripture does not come solely from Catholicism. Of course, if I were a catholic, I would undermine non catholic sources of scripture. That's a no brainer.

>> Sorry, I don't see that you proved anything.

It's impossible to have a a further discussion when you keep shifting fences. But then, you have prove time and time again that truth and integrity does not matter.

>>Ad hominem.

About the history of baptist church
http://baptisthistoryhomepage.com/chamberl...s.not.prot.html

About infant Baptism
http://www.baptistbecause.com/Tracts/baptisminfants.htm

I am just giving you an example that's all.

>> Unfortunately the claims on the baptist pages does not stand up to the scrutiny of the bible if that's the authority they claim to follow. Then you will say it is but my opinion. But since you said this is just an example, I say it is a bad example, because it also says those who accepts Infant baptism injures the child, this is contrary to the belief of having One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism. If you support the Baptist position and want to defend it, we can continue separately. Only if you want to, of course.



A church do not need to have political power in order to risk being under control to the state as long as if they are principled. There are many examples of non catholic churches right now on this.

>> And yet these non-catholic churches have not existed since the time of the Apostles. No proof of their existence from that time..zilch.


[/quote]

[quote=shioks,Apr 13 2016, 06:06 PM]
Nope. Individuals fall, never the Church.

[/quote]

the church buildings not fall. the church falls times and times again.

[/quote]
Of course I'm not talking about buildings. Church buildings also can fall, mind you. I'm talking about the Catholic Church.