Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Your claim that it was "made up in the 16th century" is wholly without evidence, and it defies basic reason and common sense. Given that NONE of the books of the New Testament say that Mary was a perpetual virgin, and they even say that Jesus had "adelphos", the natural meaning of which suggests Jesus had actual siblings, it is FAR from unlikely that the early Christians took scripture to mean what it naturally suggests - that Mary had other children. Given that there is NO evidence whatsoever in the early church that Christians believed Mary was a virgin throughout her whole life, and that the only time it really appears is THREE CENTURIES later in the Church, the idea that the belief that Mary was NOT perpetually a virgin was "invented" 1600 years later, completely out of the blue, never even before believed much less thought of, is not based in reality. In fact, given that the tradition of Mary's lifelong virginity first appeared in Gnostic texts, it is much more likely that the early Christians rejected the notion, given that it originated in a heresy.

---

It was a positive and consistent belief for 1500 years. The denial of her perpetual virginity didn't happen until the 16th century.

Actually, the heresy is upon those that reject it.

---

Again, the belief originated in Gnostic writings, and wasn't a "positive and consistent" belief until three hundred years after Jesus. It just wasn't a belief held by Jesus, his apostles, and the early church. You'll never get over this huge hole in your "consistent" theory.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Jerome is offering NO positive evidence for Mary's perpetual virginity. His argument, like yours, is entirely based on the fact that "it can not be ruled out". You can not support a positive claim with negative evidence.

---

He perpetual virginity has been consistently taught until it was first rejected in the 16th century. Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli all believed her perpetual virginity as well.

It wasn't until later, when protestants wanted to distance themselves from the True Church was it first denied.---> Again, it was belief that was completely absent in Christianity for THREE HUNDRED YEARS after Jesus. It's origin was from Gnostic texts. The same Gnostic texts that even Roman Catholic popes CONDEMNED.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

His argument about the "until" falls short because he does not address the difference in the natural implication of a phrase containing "until" between one that makes postive directives, and one that makes a negative one, as I have repeatedly demonstrated.

---

Do you find it ironic that you would argue with the man that translated the bible into Latin? What are your qualifications again? ---> do you find it ironic that you would argue with the man that translated the bible into Latin, who said the apocrypha was NOT canon scripture?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"Firstborn" can mean only child, yes, but together with the fact that Scripture cites and even names Jesus' "brothers", the natural meaning of these terms suggests Mary had other children and Jesus had real, actual siblings, not "cousins" or "brothers" of different mothers.

---

Once again, you are trying to argue against Jerome who wrote an entire treatise disproving your false assertions. Your belief was a man-made belief created after 1500 years. ---> He disproved nothing. He only argued that the arguments FOR Mary not being a virgin did not necessarily rule it out. If you really think he proved it, then provide for us his positive evidence for it that makes you think he proved it.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You keep saying it's in the Bible. It's NOWHERE in the Bible. You can craft whatever allegory or symbolism using scripture, but that will never be positive evidence. Any belief can be constructed using this method. And the kicker here, is that the Roman Catholic Church REQUIRES this belief for salvation essentially, even if it is nowhere in Scripture. You would think that one's eternal fate should be tied to something a LOT more explicit in Scripture rather than to the understanding of arcane puzzles: "Oh, you believed in me, and trusted in me for your salvation", says Jesus, "but you didn't believe in Mary's perpetual virginity? Didn't you see it? Right there, where it says I entered through the gate and then closed it, so that no one else may enter! Wasn't that obvious? Tsk, Tsk. Well, sorry, to Hell you go!"

---

We may as well agree to disagree. I can continue to present biblical references, but you will never accept them because you are locked into a false paradigm.

You are hell-bent on the unbiblical belief of sola scriptura. Until you realize that it is false, it will be difficult for you to accept the truth.

I pray that the Holy Spirit will one day soften your heart to see the real truth.

Mary is your mother too! Jesus gave her to us (metaphorically) and to the Beloved Disciple in John 19:26 when he said, "Woman, behold your son." ---> No one should accept biblical "evidence" that isn't biblical evidence. ANYONE can create "biblical" evidence to support anything they want, by doing what you're doing. The perfect example of how you create "evidence" is what you're saying here - that John is a metaphor for the entire church, therefore Mary was given to all Christians as our mother. You can make metaphors out of anything in the Bible this way. What you will always lack is any concrete, explicit teaching that supports the truth of this "metaphor" anywhere in Scripture - not from Jesus, his apostles, the church in Acts, or the early church. If the belief was so important, that it had to be dogmatized, one would think some positive, supportive evidence in concrete terms would be found SOMEWHERE, especially in Scripture.

The Holy Spirit isn't the spirit that's letting you "see" this truth. It's the spirit that is leading you to say "MARY is the road to God and all salvation". It is so shocking how blind you guys are.

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

My issue is that venerating saints feels like idol worship. Is it really wrong?

---

What do the scriptures say?

Give Honor To Whom Honor Is Due.
Romans 13:7, ESV Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.

Take Delight In Honoring In Each Other.
Romans 12:10, NLT Love each other with genuine affection, and take delight in honoring each other.

Honor Your Father And Mother.
Exodus 20:12, ESV Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you. See also: 10 Bible Verses about Honoring Your Parents.

Honor The Elderly.
Leviticus 19:32, NIV Rise in the presence of the aged, show respect for the elderly and revere your God. I am the Lord."

Honor Those Who Labor In Preaching and Teaching.
1 Timothy 5:17, ESV Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching.

Veneration (honoring, not worshipping) the saints is perfectly scriptural.

The issue with saints and intercessory prayer comes from disbelieving Jesus' promise that he who believes shall never die. In Jeremiah 15:1 we see intercessory prayer in action.

Once you get your head around the idea that although all the Christians who ever lived are still very much alive, the saints and the great cloud of witnesses gains real meaning.

---

So the Bible says to honor people.... therefore assign divine qualities to them after they die? Bow to and kiss their image?

By what divine revelation do you base the belief that: 1) the saint you're praying to can receive your prayer, whether written, verbal, or even by reading your mind - and not just yours, but from any number of others, even millions simultaneously; 2) the saint is in charge of a certain area or jurisdiction, like being the saint of merchants, saiint of lost items, etc.; 3) the saint you're praying to is even in heaven to begin with?

Regarding Jeremiah 15:1 - Did the Israelites ever pray to Moses or Samuel for intercession? Did they have images of them that they bowed to and kissed? Were they taught to do these things anywhere in the Old Testament?

---

The fundamental difference being that Roman Catholicism (like Eastern Orthodoxy, Ethiopian-Coptic-Armenian orthodoxy) is not just a religion that only engages in practices/beliefs from the Bible.

But also from the teachings of its Bishops, Popes, Patriarchs.

Praying to a saint makes no sense to a Protestant

It's very obviously makes sense to these Christians…since they are going by no just the Bible. But the authoritative teachings of the Churches, traditions, and long established practice.

No Protestant is gonna go for that unless he already has come to see one of these Churches as "the deposit of the Faith and its Priests & Bishops true legitimate successors of the apostles"

Like the teaching that Mary did not die but was taken up into Heaven and did not die a natural death.

It's gonna be hard for a Protestant to believe since the event is not in the Bible. But for a Catholic it's not hard because the Church teaches it to be true by as Church tradition.

---

Then, the legitimate and vitally important question that follows is: from where did the tradition come? From whom? How do we know it is from God?

If the tradition can not be traced back to the original teacing of Jesus and his apostles, then how do we know it's even Christian, given that everything that we know came from them is in Scripture and nowhere else?

---

I would assume that this is where Apostolic succession comes in as very important for these Churches.

Its a good question to ask...."how do we know this is even Christian"

A Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or Coptic Orthodox believer would probably answer....the Bishops and leaders of our Church who are appointed to follow in the place of the Apostles have debated it and defined it to be so....

[Apostolic succession is crucial because it ensures the authority and validity of ordained leaders and the church's connection to the original apostles, who were directly appointed by Jesus. It guarantees that the Holy Spirit and apostolic teachings are passed down through the ages]

Of course this is not going to be compelling reasons to a Protestant

---

It shouldn't be compelling reasons to anyone who follows the teaching of Jesus and his original apostles, because apostolic succesion is nowhere in Scripture. Regardless of which, it still brings us back to the original question - how do we know their teaching originated from Jesus and the original apostles through these successors? Through which successor? Do they know, for instance, from which successor, or from which line of successors...

---

You are right if course (lots of issues with that)

But of course they can counter how do we even know the Bible? After all it was the Roman Catholic Church-Eastern Orthodox Church (they had not split yet) and its bishops that created and defined the Bible itself.

How do we know what's a gnostic false gospel from a real one? Well we all essentially trust the Bishops of that time to define the Bible for us (what books are in and what books are out)

[The Council of Rome (382), the Synod of Hippo (393), and the Carthage Councils (397 and 419) affirmed the canon]

---

The early church knew which gospels were true and which weren't based on whether it was authored by an original apostle, and whether it's teachings aligned with what they already knew what the original apostles taught.

---

Another way to say the same thing: the early church knew which gospels were true and which weren't based on whether it was authored by an original apostle and whether its teachings aligned with tradition.

---

Yes.... their tradition. Not some unknown-sourced tradition hundreds of years later that can't be traced back to them. And everything we know of the tradition of Jesus and his original apostles today is in Scripture, and nowhere else.

---

How do you know that's all we know? When Jesus said the Spirit would guide us into all truth, did he mean all truth, or only the truth that's in the Bible?

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I'm not dodging anything. I answered your question directly. Do you know what "dodging" means?

---

Dodging - I'll take your word for it. You certain used the Red Herring fallacy, but I digress ...


Did bibles exist prior the Council of Trent that contained the Deuterocanonical books?

---

You obviously don't know what a red herring fallacy is, either. In fact, the sheer irony of it all is that you are the one using the red herring, by steering the discussion towards this irrelevant point about what Catholics have in their bibles, and when the apocryphal books were added. Yes, early Catholic bibles contained the apocryphal books, but the question is one of canonicity, not what was bound together in a book - the presence of the apocrypha in early Catholic bibles has no bearing on the fact that from the time of Jesus to Jerome, and then from Jerome until the 1500's, the apocryphal books were NOT considered part of canon by the majority of even Roman Catholic fathers, theologians, and scholars, and that the apocryphal books were officially added to Roman Catholic canon in the Council of Trent in the 1500's. The prevailing attitude in Jerome's time, and subsequent to Jerome, was the same attitude of the Jews during Jesus' time - the apocryphal books were considered very important, and useful for reading and learning from... but they were NOT considered canon. The Roman Catholic church officially added the apocryphal books to their canon in the 1500's. This is just a fact.

---

We go by what the Catholic Church determined is canon.

The Church complied the Bible that God gave us.
.

---

And the Eastern Orthodox Church right?

I mean they were there as well no….

Redbrickbear said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I'm not dodging anything. I answered your question directly. Do you know what "dodging" means?

---

Dodging - I'll take your word for it. You certain used the Red Herring fallacy, but I digress ...


Did bibles exist prior the Council of Trent that contained the Deuterocanonical books?

---

You obviously don't know what a red herring fallacy is, either. In fact, the sheer irony of it all is that you are the one using the red herring, by steering the discussion towards this irrelevant point about what Catholics have in their bibles, and when the apocryphal books were added. Yes, early Catholic bibles contained the apocryphal books, but the question is one of canonicity, not what was bound together in a book - the presence of the apocrypha in early Catholic bibles has no bearing on the fact that from the time of Jesus to Jerome, and then from Jerome until the 1500's, the apocryphal books were NOT considered part of canon by the majority of even Roman Catholic fathers, theologians, and scholars, and that the apocryphal books were officially added to Roman Catholic canon in the Council of Trent in the 1500's. The prevailing attitude in Jerome's time, and subsequent to Jerome, was the same attitude of the Jews during Jesus' time - the apocryphal books were considered very important, and useful for reading and learning from... but they were NOT considered canon. The Roman Catholic church officially added the apocryphal books to their canon in the 1500's. This is just a fact.

---

We go by what the Catholic Church determined is canon.

The Church complied the Bible that God gave us.
.

---

And the Eastern Orthodox Church right?

I mean they were there as well no….

---

No.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

My issue is that venerating saints feels like idol worship. Is it really wrong?

---

What do the scriptures say?

Give Honor To Whom Honor Is Due.
Romans 13:7, ESV Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.

Take Delight In Honoring In Each Other.
Romans 12:10, NLT Love each other with genuine affection, and take delight in honoring each other.

Honor Your Father And Mother.
Exodus 20:12, ESV Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you. See also: 10 Bible Verses about Honoring Your Parents.

Honor The Elderly.
Leviticus 19:32, NIV Rise in the presence of the aged, show respect for the elderly and revere your God. I am the Lord."

Honor Those Who Labor In Preaching and Teaching.
1 Timothy 5:17, ESV Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching.

Veneration (honoring, not worshipping) the saints is perfectly scriptural.

The issue with saints and intercessory prayer comes from disbelieving Jesus' promise that he who believes shall never die. In Jeremiah 15:1 we see intercessory prayer in action.

Once you get your head around the idea that although all the Christians who ever lived are still very much alive, the saints and the great cloud of witnesses gains real meaning.

---

So the Bible says to honor people.... therefore assign divine qualities to them after they die? Bow to and kiss their image?

By what divine revelation do you base the belief that: 1) the saint you're praying to can receive your prayer, whether written, verbal, or even by reading your mind - and not just yours, but from any number of others, even millions simultaneously; 2) the saint is in charge of a certain area or jurisdiction, like being the saint of merchants, saiint of lost items, etc.; 3) the saint you're praying to is even in heaven to begin with?

Regarding Jeremiah 15:1 - Did the Israelites ever pray to Moses or Samuel for intercession? Did they have images of them that they bowed to and kissed? Were they taught to do these things anywhere in the Old Testament?

---

The fundamental difference being that Roman Catholicism (like Eastern Orthodoxy, Ethiopian-Coptic-Armenian orthodoxy) is not just a religion that only engages in practices/beliefs from the Bible.

But also from the teachings of its Bishops, Popes, Patriarchs.

Praying to a saint makes no sense to a Protestant

It's very obviously makes sense to these Christians…since they are going by no just the Bible. But the authoritative teachings of the Churches, traditions, and long established practice.

No Protestant is gonna go for that unless he already has come to see one of these Churches as "the deposit of the Faith and its Priests & Bishops true legitimate successors of the apostles"

Like the teaching that Mary did not die but was taken up into Heaven and did not die a natural death.

It's gonna be hard for a Protestant to believe since the event is not in the Bible. But for a Catholic it's not hard because the Church teaches it to be true by as Church tradition.

---

Then, the legitimate and vitally important question that follows is: from where did the tradition come? From whom? How do we know it is from God?

If the tradition can not be traced back to the original teacing of Jesus and his apostles, then how do we know it's even Christian, given that everything that we know came from them is in Scripture and nowhere else?

---

I would assume that this is where Apostolic succession comes in as very important for these Churches.

Its a good question to ask...."how do we know this is even Christian"

A Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or Coptic Orthodox believer would probably answer....the Bishops and leaders of our Church who are appointed to follow in the place of the Apostles have debated it and defined it to be so....

[Apostolic succession is crucial because it ensures the authority and validity of ordained leaders and the church's connection to the original apostles, who were directly appointed by Jesus. It guarantees that the Holy Spirit and apostolic teachings are passed down through the ages]

Of course this is not going to be compelling reasons to a Protestant

---

It shouldn't be compelling reasons to anyone who follows the teaching of Jesus and his original apostles, because apostolic succesion is nowhere in Scripture. Regardless of which, it still brings us back to the original question - how do we know their teaching originated from Jesus and the original apostles through these successors? Through which successor? Do they know, for instance, from which successor, or from which line of successors...

---

You are right if course (lots of issues with that)

But of course they can counter how do we even know the Bible? After all it was the Roman Catholic Church-Eastern Orthodox Church (they had not split yet) and its bishops that created and defined the Bible itself.

How do we know what's a gnostic false gospel from a real one? Well we all essentially trust the Bishops of that time to define the Bible for us (what books are in and what books are out)

[The Council of Rome (382), the Synod of Hippo (393), and the Carthage Councils (397 and 419) affirmed the canon]

---

The early church knew which gospels were true and which weren't based on whether it was authored by an original apostle, and whether it's teachings aligned with what they already knew what the original apostles taught.

---

Another way to say the same thing: the early church knew which gospels were true and which weren't based on whether it was authored by an original apostle and whether its teachings aligned with tradition.

---

Yes.... their tradition. Not some unknown-sourced tradition hundreds of years later that can't be traced back to them. And everything we know of the tradition of Jesus and his original apostles today is in Scripture, and nowhere else.

---

How do you know that's all we know? When Jesus said the Spirit would guide us into all truth, did he mean all truth, or only the truth that's in the Bible?

---

What tradition/teaching do you know of that came from Jesus and his apostles that is not in Scripture?

And how would we know the "truth" that someone says they're receiving from the Holy Spirit is actually from God, without a measuring stick? How did the early church know Gnosticism was a false teaching, and not a new "truth" revealed by the Holy Spirit? By comparing it to what they've already been taught by the original apostles, i.e. Scripture, that's how.

The Holy Spirit has already guided us to all the truth we need, in Scripture: "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."

Complete. No new "truth" needs to be added to what's already in the Bible.

Quote:

---

That the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

---

Equipped for what?

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

That the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

---

Equipped for what?

---

For every good work - which this verse is obviously saying is required for salvation, right? /s

Quote:

---

Your last sentence made me laugh. You author a post essentially attacking the authenticity of scripture and downplaying its importance and then say it's inspired by God and critically important.

---

That's not my point at all.

My point is that if in 324 A.D., 2nd Peter was considered to be profitable but apocryphal, on what basis do you - a Christian in 2025 A.D. - consider it to be inspired through verbal plenary inspiration? Just because it's in the Bible you happen to own? Why is it in the Bible you own? Is there any deeper thought going on than sola publishera?

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

Your last sentence made me laugh. You author a post essentially attacking the authenticity of scripture and downplaying its importance and then say it's inspired by God and critically important.

---

That's not my point at all.

My point is that if in 324 A.D., 2nd Peter was considered to be profitable but apocryphal, on what basis do you - a Christian in 2025 A.D. - consider it to be inspired through verbal plenary inspiration? Just because it's in the Bible you happen to own? Why is it in the Bible you own? Is there any deeper thought going on than sola publishera?

---

Wait.... are you saying that 2 Peter is not scripture?

Or are you just using that in an example?

I've never read that there was a big debate about the authenticity of 2nd Peter... that is interesting.

2nd Peter is actually the most debated book of the New Testament.

"by the fourth century, 2 Peter was consistently included in the New Testament canon alongside 1 Peter."

https://textandcanon.org/how-2-peter-made-it-into-the-bible/

That's 400 years after Christ before it was consistently considered canon.

I'm not saying that it isn't inspired, but that the development of what we consider to be the New Testament canon happened in a very different way than the Ten Commandments. The point is that the Bible is the product of the Church. Christ didn't come to earth to publish a book. For almost a quarter of the history of our faith, there were questions about what constituted the New Testament. For three quarters of the history of our faith, lay Christians had no ability to keep and read their own personal Bible.

Yet this was the time period in which the followers of Christ were able to spread the faith widely. They simply picked up their crosses and followed Him.

Some voices from the past…

"The business of the Christian is nothing else than to be ever preparing for death." - Irenaeus

"If we are not ready to die into Christ's sufferings, his life is not in us." - Ignatius

"No one is a Christian but he who perseveres even to the end." - Tertullian

Realitybites said:

---

For three quarters of the history of our faith, lay Christians had no ability to keep and read their own personal Bible.

---

I think it's interesting that you bring this up. It was the Roman church that kept people from reading the Bible. For hundreds of years, the Catholics used their political power to make it illegal to own a Bible without a license from the catholic leadership. They also made it illegal or highly restricted for the Bible to be printed in any language other than Latin, even though the only purple who could read Latin were the clergy.
They didn't want the average person to read the scriptures for themselves. That's really awful, but once you start reading the Bible, you can understand why... the Bible refutes most of the catholic teachings.

ShooterTX said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

For three quarters of the history of our faith, lay Christians had no ability to keep and read their own personal Bible.

---

I think it's interesting that you bring this up. It was the Roman church that kept people from reading the Bible. For hundreds of years, the Catholics used their political power to make it illegal to own a Bible without a license from the catholic leadership. They also made it illegal or highly restricted for the Bible to be printed in any language other than Latin, even though the only purple who could read Latin were the clergy.
They didn't want the average person to read the scriptures for themselves. That's really awful, but once you start reading the Bible, you can understand why... the Bible refutes most of the catholic teachings.

---

Come on the printing press was not invented until 1436. Look at the first Bible printed the Guttenberg, it include the Deuterocanonical books. Funny side not on the "unbiblical" argument, if Luther had his way James and Revelations would have been canned too...

Before the printing press bibles were hand written and very expensive, not to mention the literacy rate was less than 10%.

The only thing the Church forbade was heretical books.

There are a lot of arguments here that go both ways due to the lack of information over time. The general illiterate population and lack of educated people in the Dark Ages is not one of them. You guys make it sound like a coordinated, conspiracy in a time where town 5 miles away didn't know what was going on due to a lack of communications. The Catholic Church and priests going from town to town actually kept Europe informed during that time.

You guys are really conspiracy minded, everything is some conspiracy to keep the "people" down by the "man"...

Realitybites said:

---

2nd Peter is actually the most debated book of the New Testament.

"by the fourth century, 2 Peter was consistently included in the New Testament canon alongside 1 Peter."

https://textandcanon.org/how-2-peter-made-it-into-the-bible/

That's 400 years after Christ before it was consistently considered canon.

I'm not saying that it isn't inspired, but that the development of what we consider to be the New Testament canon happened in a very different way than the Ten Commandments. The point is that the Bible is the product of the Church. Christ didn't come to earth to publish a book. For almost a quarter of the history of our faith, there were questions about what constituted the New Testament. For three quarters of the history of our faith, lay Christians had no ability to keep and read their own personal Bible.

Yet this was the time period in which the followers of Christ were able to spread the faith widely. They simply picked up their crosses and followed Him.

Some voices from the past…

"The business of the Christian is nothing else than to be ever preparing for death." - Irenaeus

"If we are not ready to die into Christ's sufferings, his life is not in us." - Ignatius

"No one is a Christian but he who perseveres even to the end." - Tertullian

---

No question that judgment calls were made by the church fathers regarding what books would be canon. I trust that God led them to the conclusions they reached, as he would not allow his word to be perverted and distorted by false teachers.

The issue here is whom shall we trust when scripture says one thing, and tradition - in this case, Catholic tradition - says another. And what happens when that tradition significantly diverges from scripture?

That is where I think Catholics tread on dangerous ground. And the way they support their position is by accusing others of placing too much importance on scripture. In short, they pit scripture and tradition against each other, with tradition always seeming to win the day.

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

2nd Peter is actually the most debated book of the New Testament.

"by the fourth century, 2 Peter was consistently included in the New Testament canon alongside 1 Peter."

https://textandcanon.org/how-2-peter-made-it-into-the-bible/

That's 400 years after Christ before it was consistently considered canon.

I'm not saying that it isn't inspired, but that the development of what we consider to be the New Testament canon happened in a very different way than the Ten Commandments. The point is that the Bible is the product of the Church. Christ didn't come to earth to publish a book. For almost a quarter of the history of our faith, there were questions about what constituted the New Testament. For three quarters of the history of our faith, lay Christians had no ability to keep and read their own personal Bible.

Yet this was the time period in which the followers of Christ were able to spread the faith widely. They simply picked up their crosses and followed Him.

Some voices from the past…

"The business of the Christian is nothing else than to be ever preparing for death." - Irenaeus

"If we are not ready to die into Christ's sufferings, his life is not in us." - Ignatius

"No one is a Christian but he who perseveres even to the end." - Tertullian

---

No question that judgment calls were made by the church fathers regarding what books would be canon. I trust that God led them to the conclusions they reached, as he would not allow his word to be perverted and distorted by false teachers.

The issue here is whom shall we trust when scripture says one thing, and tradition - in this case, Catholic tradition - says another. And what happens when that tradition significantly diverges from scripture?

That is where I think Catholics tread on dangerous ground. And the way they support their position is by accusing others of placing too much importance on scripture. In short, they pit scripture and tradition against each other, with tradition always seeming to win the day.

---

That is the kicker. As several much more versed on the Bible Catholics than me have pointed out, they have showed where the Scriptural basis is for pretty much everything being discussed. The issue is not the reconciliation with Scripture but with interpretation, believing the source and which book. Bottomline, it is everyone's individual opinion what the believe. Several on here will not believe anything but what they believe and that is it, they are right. Everything else is wrong.

How anyone can spend all that time to learn this stuff is beyond me. IMO, a life studying the Bible rather than being out using your gifts to actually help people sort of misses the point. But that is just my view.

FLBear5630 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

For three quarters of the history of our faith, lay Christians had no ability to keep and read their own personal Bible.

---

I think it's interesting that you bring this up. It was the Roman church that kept people from reading the Bible. For hundreds of years, the Catholics used their political power to make it illegal to own a Bible without a license from the catholic leadership. They also made it illegal or highly restricted for the Bible to be printed in any language other than Latin, even though the only purple who could read Latin were the clergy.
They didn't want the average person to read the scriptures for themselves. That's really awful, but once you start reading the Bible, you can understand why... the Bible refutes most of the catholic teachings.

---

Come on the printing press was not invented until 1436. Look at the first Bible printed the Guttenberg, it include the Deuterocanonical books. Funny side not on the "unbiblical" argument, if Luther had his way James and Revelations would have been canned too...

Before the printing press bibles were hand written and very expensive, not to mention the literacy rate was less than 10%.

The only thing the Church forbade was heretical books.

There are a lot of arguments here that go both ways due to the lack of information over time. The general illiterate population and lack of educated people in the Dark Ages is not one of them. You guys make it sound like a coordinated, conspiracy in a time where town 5 miles away didn't know what was going on due to a lack of communications. The Catholic Church and priests going from town to town actually kept Europe informed during that time.

You guys are really conspiracy minded, everything is some conspiracy to keep the "people" down by the "man"...

---

Leave it to Catholics to defend their ducting by attacking Luther.... as if we Christians worship the words of Luther. No, it is Catholics who believe that their leaders are infallible... not Christians.
Even the Lutheran church doesn't follow every word of Martin Luther. So attack him all you want... it does nothing for your argument.

The Council of Trent in the mid 1500s made it a universal practice to require a license from the catholic leadership in order to own a Bible. You are correct that this practice had begun hundreds of years earlier by the Catholics, but it continued for hundreds of years after the 1500s.

This isn't a conspiracy, it is historical fact. Even the catholic church admits it happened, and eventuality reversed the decision (so much for the infallibility of the magesterium).

But hey... at least we can agree that Martin Luther was wrong sometimes.
The catholic church is also wrong sometimes.... which is why Christians have the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Even Catholics will agree that the Holy Scriptures are infallible.... and they unfortunately admit that their leadership is fallible when they correct the Council decrees such as the over ruling of decrees from Trent and others.
Yet catholics still try to say that the magesterium is infallible. They have corrected themselves again by claiming that the magesterium is only infallible when making comments on doctrine.... a distinction that never existed until about 200 years ago. Before that, catholics taught that ALL council decrees were infallible. They have to correct themselves, yet they claim to be infallible... make it make sense.

ShooterTX said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

For three quarters of the history of our faith, lay Christians had no ability to keep and read their own personal Bible.

---

I think it's interesting that you bring this up. It was the Roman church that kept people from reading the Bible. For hundreds of years, the Catholics used their political power to make it illegal to own a Bible without a license from the catholic leadership. They also made it illegal or highly restricted for the Bible to be printed in any language other than Latin, even though the only purple who could read Latin were the clergy.
They didn't want the average person to read the scriptures for themselves. That's really awful, but once you start reading the Bible, you can understand why... the Bible refutes most of the catholic teachings.

---

Come on the printing press was not invented until 1436. Look at the first Bible printed the Guttenberg, it include the Deuterocanonical books. Funny side not on the "unbiblical" argument, if Luther had his way James and Revelations would have been canned too...

Before the printing press bibles were hand written and very expensive, not to mention the literacy rate was less than 10%.

The only thing the Church forbade was heretical books.

There are a lot of arguments here that go both ways due to the lack of information over time. The general illiterate population and lack of educated people in the Dark Ages is not one of them. You guys make it sound like a coordinated, conspiracy in a time where town 5 miles away didn't know what was going on due to a lack of communications. The Catholic Church and priests going from town to town actually kept Europe informed during that time.

You guys are really conspiracy minded, everything is some conspiracy to keep the "people" down by the "man"...

---

Leave it to Catholics to defend their ducting by attacking Luther.... as if we Christians worship the words of Luther. No, it is Catholics who believe that their leaders are infallible... not Christians.
Even the Lutheran church doesn't follow every word of Martin Luther. So attack him all you want... it does nothing for your argument.

The Council of Trent in the mid 1500s made it a universal practice to require a license from the catholic leadership in order to own a Bible. You are correct that this practice had begun hundreds of years earlier by the Catholics, but it continued for hundreds of years after the 1500s.

This isn't a conspiracy, it is historical fact. Even the catholic church admits it happened, and eventuality reversed the decision (so much for the infallibility of the magesterium).

But hey... at least we can agree that Martin Luther was wrong sometimes.
The catholic church is also wrong sometimes.... which is why Christians have the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Even Catholics will agree that the Holy Scriptures are infallible.... and they unfortunately admit that their leadership is fallible when they correct the Council decrees such as the over ruling of decrees from Trent and others.
Yet catholics still try to say that the magesterium is infallible. They have corrected themselves again by claiming that the magesterium is only infallible when making comments on doctrine.... a distinction that never existed until about 200 years ago. Before that, catholics taught that ALL council decrees were infallible. They have to correct themselves, yet they claim to be infallible... make it make sense.

---

Attacking? He wanted to leave those out. Leave it to a Protestant to take it as an attack. I guess you have no choice as the basis of your religion is Protest against Catholics.

You miss the point that it is not as black and white as you guys make it. There is no one point that NOW this is the legit Bible, not to mention the guy saying what is legit was a man. But, you don't go for tradition or Papal type decisions, right? But, Luther, Wesley, Calvin, and the rest are ok? They knew more? Should we throw the Mormon's in? Afterall, Joseph Smith a modern day Saul?

FLBear5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

2nd Peter is actually the most debated book of the New Testament.

"by the fourth century, 2 Peter was consistently included in the New Testament canon alongside 1 Peter."

https://textandcanon.org/how-2-peter-made-it-into-the-bible/

That's 400 years after Christ before it was consistently considered canon.

I'm not saying that it isn't inspired, but that the development of what we consider to be the New Testament canon happened in a very different way than the Ten Commandments. The point is that the Bible is the product of the Church. Christ didn't come to earth to publish a book. For almost a quarter of the history of our faith, there were questions about what constituted the New Testament. For three quarters of the history of our faith, lay Christians had no ability to keep and read their own personal Bible.

Yet this was the time period in which the followers of Christ were able to spread the faith widely. They simply picked up their crosses and followed Him.

Some voices from the past…

"The business of the Christian is nothing else than to be ever preparing for death." - Irenaeus

"If we are not ready to die into Christ's sufferings, his life is not in us." - Ignatius

"No one is a Christian but he who perseveres even to the end." - Tertullian

---

No question that judgment calls were made by the church fathers regarding what books would be canon. I trust that God led them to the conclusions they reached, as he would not allow his word to be perverted and distorted by false teachers.

The issue here is whom shall we trust when scripture says one thing, and tradition - in this case, Catholic tradition - says another. And what happens when that tradition significantly diverges from scripture?

That is where I think Catholics tread on dangerous ground. And the way they support their position is by accusing others of placing too much importance on scripture. In short, they pit scripture and tradition against each other, with tradition always seeming to win the day.

---

That is the kicker. As several much more versed on the Bible Catholics than me have pointed out, they have showed where the Scriptural basis is for pretty much everything being discussed. The issue is not the reconciliation with Scripture but with interpretation, believing the source and which book. Bottomline, it is everyone's individual opinion what the believe. Several on here will not believe anything but what they believe and that is it, they are right. Everything else is wrong.

How anyone can spend all that time to learn this stuff is beyond me. IMO, a life studying the Bible rather than being out using your gifts to actually help people sort of misses the point. But that is just my view.

---

Couldn't disagree more. I don't believe there's been any cogent, scripturally-supported retort to the issues previously discussed. At best, Catholics often times have to resort to: "well, the Bible doesn't say we CAN'T do that," or will have to take the verse out of context to support their position.

As for your second paragraph, you don't understand how can anyone spend time on getting key aspects of scripture and the Gospels correct? Seriously??? I mean, I guess if you don't think this is a life/death type of situation, I could understand it. But these matters are of high importance.

Moreover, it's not a binary dilemma. One can spend time studying the bible and also adhering to its call to spread the gospel. We just need to make sure we aren't spreading a false gospel.

Not catholic. Pope a at White Sox game? High on my cool list.

Mothra said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

2nd Peter is actually the most debated book of the New Testament.

"by the fourth century, 2 Peter was consistently included in the New Testament canon alongside 1 Peter."

https://textandcanon.org/how-2-peter-made-it-into-the-bible/

That's 400 years after Christ before it was consistently considered canon.

I'm not saying that it isn't inspired, but that the development of what we consider to be the New Testament canon happened in a very different way than the Ten Commandments. The point is that the Bible is the product of the Church. Christ didn't come to earth to publish a book. For almost a quarter of the history of our faith, there were questions about what constituted the New Testament. For three quarters of the history of our faith, lay Christians had no ability to keep and read their own personal Bible.

Yet this was the time period in which the followers of Christ were able to spread the faith widely. They simply picked up their crosses and followed Him.

Some voices from the past…

"The business of the Christian is nothing else than to be ever preparing for death." - Irenaeus

"If we are not ready to die into Christ's sufferings, his life is not in us." - Ignatius

"No one is a Christian but he who perseveres even to the end." - Tertullian

---

No question that judgment calls were made by the church fathers regarding what books would be canon. I trust that God led them to the conclusions they reached, as he would not allow his word to be perverted and distorted by false teachers.

The issue here is whom shall we trust when scripture says one thing, and tradition - in this case, Catholic tradition - says another. And what happens when that tradition significantly diverges from scripture?

That is where I think Catholics tread on dangerous ground. And the way they support their position is by accusing others of placing too much importance on scripture. In short, they pit scripture and tradition against each other, with tradition always seeming to win the day.

---

That is the kicker. As several much more versed on the Bible Catholics than me have pointed out, they have showed where the Scriptural basis is for pretty much everything being discussed. The issue is not the reconciliation with Scripture but with interpretation, believing the source and which book. Bottomline, it is everyone's individual opinion what the believe. Several on here will not believe anything but what they believe and that is it, they are right. Everything else is wrong.

How anyone can spend all that time to learn this stuff is beyond me. IMO, a life studying the Bible rather than being out using your gifts to actually help people sort of misses the point. But that is just my view.

---

Couldn't disagree more. I don't believe there's been any cogent, scripturally-supported retort to the issues previously discussed. At best, Catholics often times have to resort to: "well, the Bible doesn't say we CAN'T do that," or will have to take the verse out of context to support their position.

As for your second paragraph, you don't understand how can anyone spend time on getting key aspects of scripture and the Gospels correct? Seriously??? I mean, I guess if you don't think this is a life/death type of situation, I could understand it. But these matters are of high importance.

Moreover, it's not a binary dilemma. One can spend time studying the bible and also adhering to its call to spread the gospel. We just need to make sure we aren't spreading a false gospel.

---

So, you really think that Jesus of the Gospels would agree with you? That this is what we should be spending time doing, arguing over interpretation of Bible passages? Going into the minutia of whether the Greek meant "brother" or "Brother"? That we should shut out people that sin, tell them to come back once they figured out how not to sin anymore? I think that was your view on Gays? You can't lower the standard, they cannot be allowed into the Church community or get a blessing?

But, it is more important to argue Greek translations from 2000 years ago. That is the important thing that is "life and death" (Spoken like someone that has not faced life and death...) It is a book, put together by man. You are missing the larger message if this is what is "life and death".

I am not sure we are reading the same Gospels. I guess we have no need of Physician's.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

2nd Peter is actually the most debated book of the New Testament.

"by the fourth century, 2 Peter was consistently included in the New Testament canon alongside 1 Peter."

https://textandcanon.org/how-2-peter-made-it-into-the-bible/

That's 400 years after Christ before it was consistently considered canon.

I'm not saying that it isn't inspired, but that the development of what we consider to be the New Testament canon happened in a very different way than the Ten Commandments. The point is that the Bible is the product of the Church. Christ didn't come to earth to publish a book. For almost a quarter of the history of our faith, there were questions about what constituted the New Testament. For three quarters of the history of our faith, lay Christians had no ability to keep and read their own personal Bible.

Yet this was the time period in which the followers of Christ were able to spread the faith widely. They simply picked up their crosses and followed Him.

Some voices from the past…

"The business of the Christian is nothing else than to be ever preparing for death." - Irenaeus

"If we are not ready to die into Christ's sufferings, his life is not in us." - Ignatius

"No one is a Christian but he who perseveres even to the end." - Tertullian

---

No question that judgment calls were made by the church fathers regarding what books would be canon. I trust that God led them to the conclusions they reached, as he would not allow his word to be perverted and distorted by false teachers.

The issue here is whom shall we trust when scripture says one thing, and tradition - in this case, Catholic tradition - says another. And what happens when that tradition significantly diverges from scripture?

That is where I think Catholics tread on dangerous ground. And the way they support their position is by accusing others of placing too much importance on scripture. In short, they pit scripture and tradition against each other, with tradition always seeming to win the day.

---

That is the kicker. As several much more versed on the Bible Catholics than me have pointed out, they have showed where the Scriptural basis is for pretty much everything being discussed. The issue is not the reconciliation with Scripture but with interpretation, believing the source and which book. Bottomline, it is everyone's individual opinion what the believe. Several on here will not believe anything but what they believe and that is it, they are right. Everything else is wrong.

How anyone can spend all that time to learn this stuff is beyond me. IMO, a life studying the Bible rather than being out using your gifts to actually help people sort of misses the point. But that is just my view.

---

Couldn't disagree more. I don't believe there's been any cogent, scripturally-supported retort to the issues previously discussed. At best, Catholics often times have to resort to: "well, the Bible doesn't say we CAN'T do that," or will have to take the verse out of context to support their position.

As for your second paragraph, you don't understand how can anyone spend time on getting key aspects of scripture and the Gospels correct? Seriously??? I mean, I guess if you don't think this is a life/death type of situation, I could understand it. But these matters are of high importance.

Moreover, it's not a binary dilemma. One can spend time studying the bible and also adhering to its call to spread the gospel. We just need to make sure we aren't spreading a false gospel.

---

So, you really think that Jesus of the Gospels would agree with you? That this is what we should be spending time doing, arguing over interpretation of Bible passages? Going into the minutia of whether the Greek meant "brother" or "Brother"? That we should shut out people that sin, tell them to come back once they figured out how not to sin anymore? I think that was your view on Gays? You can't lower the standard, they cannot be allowed into the Church community or get a blessing?

But, it is more important to argue Greek translations from 2000 years ago. That is the important thing that is "life and death" (Spoken like someone that has not faced life and death...) It is a book, put together by man. You are missing the larger message if this is what is "life and death".

I am not sure we are reading the same Gospels. I guess we have no need of Physician's.

---

I am not sure what you're talking about. I have not argued those positions.

You responded to my post, and I advised you that yes, I believe doctrine is worth debating, especially given the eternal consequences of same. Any Christian - if they are truly Christian - understands that. If you feel otherwise, then indeed, I am not sure you're reading the Gospels.

We can serve God and also have this discussion. So once again, I do not accept your false dilemma.

Mothra said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

2nd Peter is actually the most debated book of the New Testament.

"by the fourth century, 2 Peter was consistently included in the New Testament canon alongside 1 Peter."

https://textandcanon.org/how-2-peter-made-it-into-the-bible/

That's 400 years after Christ before it was consistently considered canon.

I'm not saying that it isn't inspired, but that the development of what we consider to be the New Testament canon happened in a very different way than the Ten Commandments. The point is that the Bible is the product of the Church. Christ didn't come to earth to publish a book. For almost a quarter of the history of our faith, there were questions about what constituted the New Testament. For three quarters of the history of our faith, lay Christians had no ability to keep and read their own personal Bible.

Yet this was the time period in which the followers of Christ were able to spread the faith widely. They simply picked up their crosses and followed Him.

Some voices from the past…

"The business of the Christian is nothing else than to be ever preparing for death." - Irenaeus

"If we are not ready to die into Christ's sufferings, his life is not in us." - Ignatius

"No one is a Christian but he who perseveres even to the end." - Tertullian

---

No question that judgment calls were made by the church fathers regarding what books would be canon. I trust that God led them to the conclusions they reached, as he would not allow his word to be perverted and distorted by false teachers.

The issue here is whom shall we trust when scripture says one thing, and tradition - in this case, Catholic tradition - says another. And what happens when that tradition significantly diverges from scripture?

That is where I think Catholics tread on dangerous ground. And the way they support their position is by accusing others of placing too much importance on scripture. In short, they pit scripture and tradition against each other, with tradition always seeming to win the day.

---

That is the kicker. As several much more versed on the Bible Catholics than me have pointed out, they have showed where the Scriptural basis is for pretty much everything being discussed. The issue is not the reconciliation with Scripture but with interpretation, believing the source and which book. Bottomline, it is everyone's individual opinion what the believe. Several on here will not believe anything but what they believe and that is it, they are right. Everything else is wrong.

How anyone can spend all that time to learn this stuff is beyond me. IMO, a life studying the Bible rather than being out using your gifts to actually help people sort of misses the point. But that is just my view.

---

Couldn't disagree more. I don't believe there's been any cogent, scripturally-supported retort to the issues previously discussed. At best, Catholics often times have to resort to: "well, the Bible doesn't say we CAN'T do that," or will have to take the verse out of context to support their position.

As for your second paragraph, you don't understand how can anyone spend time on getting key aspects of scripture and the Gospels correct? Seriously??? I mean, I guess if you don't think this is a life/death type of situation, I could understand it. But these matters are of high importance.

Moreover, it's not a binary dilemma. One can spend time studying the bible and also adhering to its call to spread the gospel. We just need to make sure we aren't spreading a false gospel.

---

So, you really think that Jesus of the Gospels would agree with you? That this is what we should be spending time doing, arguing over interpretation of Bible passages? Going into the minutia of whether the Greek meant "brother" or "Brother"? That we should shut out people that sin, tell them to come back once they figured out how not to sin anymore? I think that was your view on Gays? You can't lower the standard, they cannot be allowed into the Church community or get a blessing?

But, it is more important to argue Greek translations from 2000 years ago. That is the important thing that is "life and death" (Spoken like someone that has not faced life and death...) It is a book, put together by man. You are missing the larger message if this is what is "life and death".

I am not sure we are reading the same Gospels. I guess we have no need of Physician's.

---

I am not sure what you're talking about. I have not argued those positions.

You responded to my post, and I advised you that yes, I believe doctrine is worth debating, especially given the eternal consequences of same. Any Christian - if they are truly Christian - understands that. If you feel otherwise, then indeed, I am not sure you're reading the Gospels.

We can serve God and also have this discussion. So once again, I do not accept your false dilemma.

---

Figured some response like that. Let me spell it out for you, if you are focusing on the minutia written words and not out working with sinners you are missing the point of the Gospels. Christ came for the sinner, not the person who follows every rule. A healthy person has no need of a physician. You only seem to discuss the Bible as if that was Christ's mission. Christ left no written word, but he ate with and went to the sinners.

I state again, if the focus of your worship and believes is centered solely on the Bible, which all indications of life and death it is. I think you are missing the larger point. Do you think the Christ of the Gospels would take part in this minutia, I am right/you are wrong discussion over whether the Bible should include the Apocrypha or if his Mom was a virgin or had sex? Think about it. I think you are all nuts with the excessive Bible worship. The real Christians are out there in the world, not dissecting a book.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

2nd Peter is actually the most debated book of the New Testament.

"by the fourth century, 2 Peter was consistently included in the New Testament canon alongside 1 Peter."

https://textandcanon.org/how-2-peter-made-it-into-the-bible/

That's 400 years after Christ before it was consistently considered canon.

I'm not saying that it isn't inspired, but that the development of what we consider to be the New Testament canon happened in a very different way than the Ten Commandments. The point is that the Bible is the product of the Church. Christ didn't come to earth to publish a book. For almost a quarter of the history of our faith, there were questions about what constituted the New Testament. For three quarters of the history of our faith, lay Christians had no ability to keep and read their own personal Bible.

Yet this was the time period in which the followers of Christ were able to spread the faith widely. They simply picked up their crosses and followed Him.

Some voices from the past…

"The business of the Christian is nothing else than to be ever preparing for death." - Irenaeus

"If we are not ready to die into Christ's sufferings, his life is not in us." - Ignatius

"No one is a Christian but he who perseveres even to the end." - Tertullian

---

No question that judgment calls were made by the church fathers regarding what books would be canon. I trust that God led them to the conclusions they reached, as he would not allow his word to be perverted and distorted by false teachers.

The issue here is whom shall we trust when scripture says one thing, and tradition - in this case, Catholic tradition - says another. And what happens when that tradition significantly diverges from scripture?

That is where I think Catholics tread on dangerous ground. And the way they support their position is by accusing others of placing too much importance on scripture. In short, they pit scripture and tradition against each other, with tradition always seeming to win the day.

---

That is the kicker. As several much more versed on the Bible Catholics than me have pointed out, they have showed where the Scriptural basis is for pretty much everything being discussed. The issue is not the reconciliation with Scripture but with interpretation, believing the source and which book. Bottomline, it is everyone's individual opinion what the believe. Several on here will not believe anything but what they believe and that is it, they are right. Everything else is wrong.

How anyone can spend all that time to learn this stuff is beyond me. IMO, a life studying the Bible rather than being out using your gifts to actually help people sort of misses the point. But that is just my view.

---

Couldn't disagree more. I don't believe there's been any cogent, scripturally-supported retort to the issues previously discussed. At best, Catholics often times have to resort to: "well, the Bible doesn't say we CAN'T do that," or will have to take the verse out of context to support their position.

As for your second paragraph, you don't understand how can anyone spend time on getting key aspects of scripture and the Gospels correct? Seriously??? I mean, I guess if you don't think this is a life/death type of situation, I could understand it. But these matters are of high importance.

Moreover, it's not a binary dilemma. One can spend time studying the bible and also adhering to its call to spread the gospel. We just need to make sure we aren't spreading a false gospel.

---

So, you really think that Jesus of the Gospels would agree with you? That this is what we should be spending time doing, arguing over interpretation of Bible passages? Going into the minutia of whether the Greek meant "brother" or "Brother"? That we should shut out people that sin, tell them to come back once they figured out how not to sin anymore? I think that was your view on Gays? You can't lower the standard, they cannot be allowed into the Church community or get a blessing?

But, it is more important to argue Greek translations from 2000 years ago. That is the important thing that is "life and death" (Spoken like someone that has not faced life and death...) It is a book, put together by man. You are missing the larger message if this is what is "life and death".

I am not sure we are reading the same Gospels. I guess we have no need of Physician's.

---

I am not sure what you're talking about. I have not argued those positions.

You responded to my post, and I advised you that yes, I believe doctrine is worth debating, especially given the eternal consequences of same. Any Christian - if they are truly Christian - understands that. If you feel otherwise, then indeed, I am not sure you're reading the Gospels.

We can serve God and also have this discussion. So once again, I do not accept your false dilemma.

---

Figured some response like that. Let me spell it out for you, if you are focusing on the minutia written words and not out working with sinners you are missing the point of the Gospels. Christ came for the sinner, not the person who follows every rule. A healthy person has no need of a physician. You only seem to discuss the Bible as if that was Christ's mission. Christ left no written word, but he ate with and went to the sinners.

I state again, if the focus of your worship and believes is centered solely on the Bible, which all indications of life and death it is. I think you are missing the larger point. Do you think the Christ of the Gospels would take part in this minutia, I am right/you are wrong discussion over whether the Bible should include the Apocrypha or if his Mom was a virgin or had sex? Think about it. I think you are all nuts with the excessive Bible worship. The real Christians are out there in the world, not dissecting a book.

---

Again, you keep repeating a false dilemma. You're assuming we cannot debate the "minutia" as you call it (I call it central tenets of the faith and salvation, but so be it) and still comply with the Great Commission. I could not disagree more. We can do both.

I am not sure what you mean by the focus of my worship is solely the Bible. Just because one believes the Bible takes precedence over tradition - especially tradition that disagree with the Holy Scriptures - does not mean one worships scripture.

This is another one of your false dichotomies.

Quote:

---

That we should shut out people that sin, tell them to come back once they figured out how not to sin anymore? I think that was your view on Gays? You can't lower the standard, they cannot be allowed into the Church community or get a blessing?

---

God reconciles with the penitent sinner. A man cannot say "I'm gay, I shall continue to be gay, and you have to bless me anyway." Until they are fully willing to turn from their homosexuality, they cannot be allowed into the Church community. As long as they hold to that disordered identity, they are not penitent sinners.

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

2nd Peter is actually the most debated book of the New Testament.

"by the fourth century, 2 Peter was consistently included in the New Testament canon alongside 1 Peter."

https://textandcanon.org/how-2-peter-made-it-into-the-bible/

That's 400 years after Christ before it was consistently considered canon.

I'm not saying that it isn't inspired, but that the development of what we consider to be the New Testament canon happened in a very different way than the Ten Commandments. The point is that the Bible is the product of the Church. Christ didn't come to earth to publish a book. For almost a quarter of the history of our faith, there were questions about what constituted the New Testament. For three quarters of the history of our faith, lay Christians had no ability to keep and read their own personal Bible.

Yet this was the time period in which the followers of Christ were able to spread the faith widely. They simply picked up their crosses and followed Him.

Some voices from the past…

"The business of the Christian is nothing else than to be ever preparing for death." - Irenaeus

"If we are not ready to die into Christ's sufferings, his life is not in us." - Ignatius

"No one is a Christian but he who perseveres even to the end." - Tertullian

---

No question that judgment calls were made by the church fathers regarding what books would be canon. I trust that God led them to the conclusions they reached, as he would not allow his word to be perverted and distorted by false teachers.

The issue here is whom shall we trust when scripture says one thing, and tradition - in this case, Catholic tradition - says another. And what happens when that tradition significantly diverges from scripture?

That is where I think Catholics tread on dangerous ground. And the way they support their position is by accusing others of placing too much importance on scripture. In short, they pit scripture and tradition against each other, with tradition always seeming to win the day.

---

The issue is how we know what is and isn't Scripture. The answer is tradition. The Church doesn't pit them against each other, but harmonizes them.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

2nd Peter is actually the most debated book of the New Testament.

"by the fourth century, 2 Peter was consistently included in the New Testament canon alongside 1 Peter."

https://textandcanon.org/how-2-peter-made-it-into-the-bible/

That's 400 years after Christ before it was consistently considered canon.

I'm not saying that it isn't inspired, but that the development of what we consider to be the New Testament canon happened in a very different way than the Ten Commandments. The point is that the Bible is the product of the Church. Christ didn't come to earth to publish a book. For almost a quarter of the history of our faith, there were questions about what constituted the New Testament. For three quarters of the history of our faith, lay Christians had no ability to keep and read their own personal Bible.

Yet this was the time period in which the followers of Christ were able to spread the faith widely. They simply picked up their crosses and followed Him.

Some voices from the past…

"The business of the Christian is nothing else than to be ever preparing for death." - Irenaeus

"If we are not ready to die into Christ's sufferings, his life is not in us." - Ignatius

"No one is a Christian but he who perseveres even to the end." - Tertullian

---

No question that judgment calls were made by the church fathers regarding what books would be canon. I trust that God led them to the conclusions they reached, as he would not allow his word to be perverted and distorted by false teachers.

The issue here is whom shall we trust when scripture says one thing, and tradition - in this case, Catholic tradition - says another. And what happens when that tradition significantly diverges from scripture?

That is where I think Catholics tread on dangerous ground. And the way they support their position is by accusing others of placing too much importance on scripture. In short, they pit scripture and tradition against each other, with tradition always seeming to win the day.

---

The issue is how we know what is and isn't Scripture. The answer is tradition. The Church doesn't pit them against each other, but harmonizes them.

---

If by "Church" you erroneously mean Catholicism, clearly it does not.

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

That we should shut out people that sin, tell them to come back once they figured out how not to sin anymore? I think that was your view on Gays? You can't lower the standard, they cannot be allowed into the Church community or get a blessing?

---

God reconciles with the penitent sinner. A man cannot say "I'm gay, I shall continue to be gay, and you have to bless me anyway." Until they are fully willing to turn from their homosexuality, they cannot be allowed into the Church community. As long as they hold to that disordered identity, they are not penitent sinners.

---

So, you have conquered all your sins. You don't repeat them? Using your logic, a liar that keeps lying even when trying needs the boot. You have conquered your sin, no repeats... Christ came for the f-ed up, not those that have their **** together.

ShooterTX said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

For three quarters of the history of our faith, lay Christians had no ability to keep and read their own personal Bible.

---

I think it's interesting that you bring this up. It was the Roman church that kept people from reading the Bible. For hundreds of years, the Catholics used their political power to make it illegal to own a Bible without a license from the catholic leadership. They also made it illegal or highly restricted for the Bible to be printed in any language other than Latin, even though the only purple who could read Latin were the clergy.
They didn't want the average person to read the scriptures for themselves. That's really awful, but once you start reading the Bible, you can understand why... the Bible refutes most of the catholic teachings.

---

The Church has never suppressed the reading, ownership, or translation of the Bible per se. It has guarded against faulty translations, and we should all be thankful for that. It's the reason we have such reliable texts.

As for the ecumenical councils, they have always been infallible on matters of faith and morals, not disciplinary or prudential matters.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

2nd Peter is actually the most debated book of the New Testament.

"by the fourth century, 2 Peter was consistently included in the New Testament canon alongside 1 Peter."

https://textandcanon.org/how-2-peter-made-it-into-the-bible/

That's 400 years after Christ before it was consistently considered canon.

I'm not saying that it isn't inspired, but that the development of what we consider to be the New Testament canon happened in a very different way than the Ten Commandments. The point is that the Bible is the product of the Church. Christ didn't come to earth to publish a book. For almost a quarter of the history of our faith, there were questions about what constituted the New Testament. For three quarters of the history of our faith, lay Christians had no ability to keep and read their own personal Bible.

Yet this was the time period in which the followers of Christ were able to spread the faith widely. They simply picked up their crosses and followed Him.

Some voices from the past…

"The business of the Christian is nothing else than to be ever preparing for death." - Irenaeus

"If we are not ready to die into Christ's sufferings, his life is not in us." - Ignatius

"No one is a Christian but he who perseveres even to the end." - Tertullian

---

No question that judgment calls were made by the church fathers regarding what books would be canon. I trust that God led them to the conclusions they reached, as he would not allow his word to be perverted and distorted by false teachers.

The issue here is whom shall we trust when scripture says one thing, and tradition - in this case, Catholic tradition - says another. And what happens when that tradition significantly diverges from scripture?

That is where I think Catholics tread on dangerous ground. And the way they support their position is by accusing others of placing too much importance on scripture. In short, they pit scripture and tradition against each other, with tradition always seeming to win the day.

---

That is the kicker. As several much more versed on the Bible Catholics than me have pointed out, they have showed where the Scriptural basis is for pretty much everything being discussed. The issue is not the reconciliation with Scripture but with interpretation, believing the source and which book. Bottomline, it is everyone's individual opinion what the believe. Several on here will not believe anything but what they believe and that is it, they are right. Everything else is wrong.

How anyone can spend all that time to learn this stuff is beyond me. IMO, a life studying the Bible rather than being out using your gifts to actually help people sort of misses the point. But that is just my view.

---

Couldn't disagree more. I don't believe there's been any cogent, scripturally-supported retort to the issues previously discussed. At best, Catholics often times have to resort to: "well, the Bible doesn't say we CAN'T do that," or will have to take the verse out of context to support their position.

As for your second paragraph, you don't understand how can anyone spend time on getting key aspects of scripture and the Gospels correct? Seriously??? I mean, I guess if you don't think this is a life/death type of situation, I could understand it. But these matters are of high importance.

Moreover, it's not a binary dilemma. One can spend time studying the bible and also adhering to its call to spread the gospel. We just need to make sure we aren't spreading a false gospel.

---

So, you really think that Jesus of the Gospels would agree with you? That this is what we should be spending time doing, arguing over interpretation of Bible passages? Going into the minutia of whether the Greek meant "brother" or "Brother"? That we should shut out people that sin, tell them to come back once they figured out how not to sin anymore? I think that was your view on Gays? You can't lower the standard, they cannot be allowed into the Church community or get a blessing?

But, it is more important to argue Greek translations from 2000 years ago. That is the important thing that is "life and death" (Spoken like someone that has not faced life and death...) It is a book, put together by man. You are missing the larger message if this is what is "life and death".

I am not sure we are reading the same Gospels. I guess we have no need of Physician's.

---

I am not sure what you're talking about. I have not argued those positions.

You responded to my post, and I advised you that yes, I believe doctrine is worth debating, especially given the eternal consequences of same. Any Christian - if they are truly Christian - understands that. If you feel otherwise, then indeed, I am not sure you're reading the Gospels.

We can serve God and also have this discussion. So once again, I do not accept your false dilemma.

---

Figured some response like that. Let me spell it out for you, if you are focusing on the minutia written words and not out working with sinners you are missing the point of the Gospels. Christ came for the sinner, not the person who follows every rule. A healthy person has no need of a physician. You only seem to discuss the Bible as if that was Christ's mission. Christ left no written word, but he ate with and went to the sinners.

I state again, if the focus of your worship and believes is centered solely on the Bible, which all indications of life and death it is. I think you are missing the larger point. Do you think the Christ of the Gospels would take part in this minutia, I am right/you are wrong discussion over whether the Bible should include the Apocrypha or if his Mom was a virgin or had sex? Think about it. I think you are all nuts with the excessive Bible worship. The real Christians are out there in the world, not dissecting a book.

---

This isn't about "minutia". If you have not garnered by now that the traditions of the Roman Catholic Church have led to the divinization of Mary to the point where she actually usurps the role and characteristics of Jesus, thus leading people away from the one true Savior, then you are a blind fool. You want to "work on sinners" and lead them to your church - but to what are you leading them to? A false gospel that damns them? This is why doctrine matters. Your minimization of something of such eternal importance tell us you really don't understand what's at stake here.

Sam Lowry said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

For three quarters of the history of our faith, lay Christians had no ability to keep and read their own personal Bible.

---

I think it's interesting that you bring this up. It was the Roman church that kept people from reading the Bible. For hundreds of years, the Catholics used their political power to make it illegal to own a Bible without a license from the catholic leadership. They also made it illegal or highly restricted for the Bible to be printed in any language other than Latin, even though the only purple who could read Latin were the clergy.
They didn't want the average person to read the scriptures for themselves. That's really awful, but once you start reading the Bible, you can understand why... the Bible refutes most of the catholic teachings.

---

The Church has never suppressed the reading, ownership, or translation of the Bible per se. It has guarded against faulty translations, and we should all be thankful for that. It's the reason we have such reliable texts.

As for the ecumenical councils, they have always been infallible on matters of faith and morals, not disciplinary or prudential matters.

---

This is crazy gaslighting. William Tyndale says hi from heaven.

And I have proven ecumenical church councils to be fallible, by showing that the declaration from Vatican I that the "ancient and constant faith" that has "always been believed" by the church was that Peter was the "rock" upon which Jesus built his church and was the only one to receive the "keys" to heaven, is patently false. A fact easily demonstrated from church history.

Quote:

---

I think it's interesting that you bring this up. It was the Roman church that kept people from reading the Bible. For hundreds of years, the Catholics used their political power to make it illegal to own a Bible without a license from the catholic leadership. They also made it illegal or highly restricted for the Bible to be printed in any language other than Latin, even though the only purple who could read Latin were the clergy.

---

The Gutenberg Bible was printed in the 1450s. That's one thousand, four hundred, fifty years after Christ. Prior that, it was scribes and scrolls. So even apart from Roman Catholic decrees, which I list below, the technology for every Christian to own his own copy of the Bible did not exist. The literacy rates were low so even if magically this obstacle was overcome, the majority of the owners could not read what they owned.

As for your correct assertions regarding the Roman Catholic Church and the Bible, the following is a list of their decrees.

At the Council of Toulouse (1229 A.D), papal church leaders ruled: "We prohibit laymen possessing copies of the Old and New Testament … We forbid them most severely to have the above books in the popular vernacular."

The Roman Catholic Council of Tarragona also ruled that: "No one may possess the books of the Old and New Testaments in the Romance language, and if anyone possesses them he must turn them over to the local bishop within eight days after the promulgation of this decree, so that they may be burned."

The Council of Trent (1545-1564) placed the Bible on its list of prohibited books, and forbade any person to read the Bible without a license from a Roman Catholic bishop or inquisitor. The Council added these words: "That if any one shall dare to read or keep in his possession that book, without such a license, he shall not receive absolution till he has given it up to his ordinary."

These councils were strictly councils of the Latin church, and not accepted by the Churches of Jerusalem, Egypt, Antioch, Constantinople, Moscow, India, or Japan. Like other decrees of Latin Church councils after the schism (a celibate priesthood, the immaculate conception of Mary, etc) they had no bearing on Christendom outside Western Europe and her colonies.

What do those churches teach?

What do the Orthodox think about the Bible? What about Sola Scriptura?

Much of the content of Orthodox worship services consists of readings from the Scriptures, especially the Psalms. Readings from the Gospel occur at most services, along with regular readings from the Epistles. There are not now, nor have there ever been, any restrictions on the laity with regard to reading the Scripturesthey are, and always have been, encouraged to read them. As for Sola Scriptura, we believe that the Scriptures are the "canon"the measuring stickwhich must be applied to all doctrine, but it is not the only source doctrine. In other words, not all doctrine is found in the Scriptures, but no Orthodox doctrine contradicts the Scriptures.

Why is this so?

It's because the Orthodox Church actually produced the Bible. The Church also lived Christian life to the fullest for centuries before the canon of the New Testament was even recognizable (AD 367). As such, the Bible is always understood within the life of the Church, not above or apart from it. The Bible is the Church's book.

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

I think it's interesting that you bring this up. It was the Roman church that kept people from reading the Bible. For hundreds of years, the Catholics used their political power to make it illegal to own a Bible without a license from the catholic leadership. They also made it illegal or highly restricted for the Bible to be printed in any language other than Latin, even though the only purple who could read Latin were the clergy.

---

The Gutenberg Bible was printed in the 1450s. That's one thousand, four hundred, fifty years after Christ. Prior that, it was scribes and scrolls. So even apart from Roman Catholic decrees, which I list below, the technology for every Christian to own his own copy of the Bible did not exist. The literacy rates were low so even if magically this obstacle was overcome, the majority of the owners could not read what they owned.

As for your correct assertions regarding the Roman Catholic Church and the Bible, the following is a list of their decrees.

At the Council of Toulouse (1229 A.D), papal church leaders ruled: "We prohibit laymen possessing copies of the Old and New Testament … We forbid them most severely to have the above books in the popular vernacular."

The Roman Catholic Council of Tarragona also ruled that: "No one may possess the books of the Old and New Testaments in the Romance language, and if anyone possesses them he must turn them over to the local bishop within eight days after the promulgation of this decree, so that they may be burned."

The Council of Trent (1545-1564) placed the Bible on its list of prohibited books, and forbade any person to read the Bible without a license from a Roman Catholic bishop or inquisitor. The Council added these words: "That if any one shall dare to read or keep in his possession that book, without such a license, he shall not receive absolution till he has given it up to his ordinary."

These councils were strictly councils of the Latin church, and not accepted by the Churches of Jerusalem, Egypt, Antioch, Constantinople, Moscow, India, or Japan. Like other decrees of Latin Church councils after the schism (a celibate priesthood, the immaculate conception of Mary, etc) they had no bearing on Christendom outside Western Europe and her colonies.

What do those churches teach?

What do the Orthodox think about the Bible? What about Sola Scriptura?

Much of the content of Orthodox worship services consists of readings from the Scriptures, especially the Psalms. Readings from the Gospel occur at most services, along with regular readings from the Epistles. There are not now, nor have there ever been, any restrictions on the laity with regard to reading the Scripturesthey are, and always have been, encouraged to read them. As for Sola Scriptura, we believe that the Scriptures are the "canon"the measuring stickwhich must be applied to all doctrine, but it is not the only source doctrine. In other words, not all doctrine is found in the Scriptures, but no Orthodox doctrine contradicts the Scriptures.

Why is this so?

It's because the Orthodox Church actually produced the Bible. The Church also lived Christian life to the fullest for centuries before the canon of the New Testament was even recognizable (AD 367). As such, the Bible is always understood within the life of the Church, not above or apart from it. The Bible is the Church's book.

---

The Councils of Toulouse and Tarragona were not ecumenical councils. They were local or provincial councils dealing with the problem of faulty translations in their respective jurisdictions.

The Council of Trent didn't "prohibit" the Bible but required a license for vernacular translations. Such translations were produced by Catholic authors many centuries before the Reformation.

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

I think it's interesting that you bring this up. It was the Roman church that kept people from reading the Bible. For hundreds of years, the Catholics used their political power to make it illegal to own a Bible without a license from the catholic leadership. They also made it illegal or highly restricted for the Bible to be printed in any language other than Latin, even though the only purple who could read Latin were the clergy.

---

....

What do the Orthodox think about the Bible? What about Sola Scriptura?

Much of the content of Orthodox worship services consists of readings from the Scriptures, especially the Psalms. Readings from the Gospel occur at most services, along with regular readings from the Epistles. There are not now, nor have there ever been, any restrictions on the laity with regard to reading the Scripturesthey are, and always have been, encouraged to read them. As for Sola Scriptura, we believe that the Scriptures are the "canon"the measuring stickwhich must be applied to all doctrine, but it is not the only source doctrine. In other words, not all doctrine is found in the Scriptures, but no Orthodox doctrine contradicts the Scriptures.

Why is this so?

It's because the Orthodox Church actually produced the Bible. The Church also lived Christian life to the fullest for centuries before the canon of the New Testament was even recognizable (AD 367). As such, the Bible is always understood within the life of the Church, not above or apart from it. The Bible is the Church's book.

---

You apparently don't understand what sola scriptura is and means, even after all your arguing against it. It does not mean that Scripture is the ONLY source for doctrine, it means it's the only infallible source. Therefore it's the source against which all other doctrine derived outside scripture is measured. In fact, this is exactly what you just stated above regarding the Orthodox view. So after all, it turns out you actually agree with sola scriptura.

And how did the Orthodox Church "produce" the Bible? Not a single Christian wrote a book in the Old Testament, and not a single writer of the New Testament books was an Orthodox Christian. And the Holy Spirit/God is the actual author, i.e. "producer" of all Scripture, and hence the Bible. The Church only recognized it as such and received it. The canon of Scripture is more of a theological concept than it is a historical/ecclesiastical one.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Cite your evidence that Jerome finally considered it canon.

---

First, Jerome studied with the non-Christian Jews that were the intellectual descendants of the Pharisees. Of course they rejected the Deuterocanon and Jesus. He was influence by their thought.

In the prologue to Judith, he states that "because this book is found by the Nicene Council [of A.D. 325] to have been counted among the number of the Sacred Scriptures, I have acquiesced to your request" to translate it.

Also in Against Rufinus 2:33, he references the deuterocanonical portions of Daniel, he wrote, "What sin have I committed in following the judgment of the churches?"

Finally, at the end of the day, he acquiesced to the Church as to what the proper canon was.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The plain and simple fact is, as I've shown you before, that from the time of Jerome up until the 1500's the majority of church fathers, theologians, and scholars did NOT view the apocryphal books as canon. You can deny this all you want, you're not going to make this magically untrue.

---

You can type it all you want it is completely untrue to state that a majority of the Church fathers rejected the entire Deuterocanon.

Throughout the Middle Ages, most theologians and scholars accepted the books and used them in liturgy and teaching.

I say it earlier and it bears repeating. The Church collected the books of the Bible that God made inspired. It wasn't the Church fathers or scholars that declared what was canon. It was the Church that performed that role.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I'm not struggling to admit anything. You're trying to argue that since Bibles contained the apocryphal books, that it meant they were considered canon. Again, the majority view during most of Christian history thought otherwise. Those books were in Bibles, but they weren't considered canon. There's a difference between being "in" a Bible, and being canon scripture. You are trying to lump them together, which is fallacious as I've repeatedly explained.

---

Your argument is ludicrous. Why would the Church put books in their bible if they weren't canonical?

After the Council of Rome in 382, the bible NEVER contained the Shepard of Hermas or First Clement, which were both debated to be scripture.

After that point, the bible never contained 1 & 2 Esdras, Book of Enoch, or the Book of Jubilees.

Once the canon was set, the Church did add books for "valued reading". The bible only contained the 73 books.

The bible was changed by the "reformers". To say otherwise is to be historically and intellectually dishonest.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"The books were always there" - they were not present in the earliest known Christian canon lists (Melito's canon, Bryennios' list). Even Roman Catholic councils approved canon lists that did not contain the apocryphal books. You are arguing against history. Luther didn't remove what was already considered "removed" by the earliest canon lists, the majority of church fathers, theologians, and scholars from the time of Jerome until the 1500's, and even Roman Catholic councils themselves.

---

When Melito's canon list was written, we still didn't have the NT settled. Scholars now believe Bryennios' list was now actually written 2 centuries later. Irrespective, once again, the NT wasn't even settled at this point.

There's no reason to believe that the Church had the OT settled at this point either.

Quote:

---

Once the canon was set, the Church did add books for "valued reading". The bible only contained the 73 books.

The bible was changed by the "reformers". To say otherwise is to be historically and intellectually dishonest.

---

Correct. Not only that, even the reformers didn't remove those books, only segregated them as the apocrypha. The original Geneva and 1611 King James contained them. It wasn't till around a little over 100 years ago that the British Bible Society began printing the 66 book Bible that modern Evangelicals consider normative.