ShooterTX said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

The problem is that you have chosen to hold a Jewish and Muslim view of idolatry. A pre-God With Us view of idolatry. Not surprising, I guess. Yes, having a statue of Mary is OK and one of Baal is not. Furthermore, peeling off one of the ten commandments and voiding it as ceremonial is incorrect

---

This has nothing to do with Islam. That is a stupid and inaccurate comment.

So you think that Jesus changed the rules on idolatry? Show me that scripture. Show me where Jesus taught that idolatry is now OK.

---

Jesus did not change the rules on idolatry. Idolatry is a sin. The issue is that you can't identify what constitutes idolatry.

Realitybites said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

The problem is that you have chosen to hold a Jewish and Muslim view of idolatry. A pre-God With Us view of idolatry. Not surprising, I guess. Yes, having a statue of Mary is OK and one of Baal is not. Furthermore, peeling off one of the ten commandments and voiding it as ceremonial is incorrect

---

This has nothing to do with Islam. That is a stupid and inaccurate comment.

So you think that Jesus changed the rules on idolatry? Show me that scripture. Show me where Jesus taught that idolatry is now OK.

---

Jesus did not change the rules on idolatry. Idolatry is a sin. The issue is that you can't identify what constitutes idolatry.

---

I don't have to identify it. God did that for us. But you claimed that God changed that definition, and yet you have no evidence to show it.
God was very clear that no one should bow to or worship any graven image.
You said that is no longer valid. Give the evidence that God changed his mind about idolatry. It is your claim, so you are required to defend it.

Quote:

---

God was very clear that no one should bow to or worship any graven image.

---

Correct. Worshipping Christ is not idolatry. Venerating icons is not idolatry. We do not worship icons.

And you're the one dismissing the fourth commandment as "ceremonial".

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

God was very clear that no one should bow to or worship any graven image.

---

Correct. Worshipping Christ is not idolatry. Venerating icons is not idolatry. We do not worship icons.

And you're the one dismissing the fourth commandment as "ceremonial".

---

Bowing to a statue of Mary is idolatry.

Nice attempt to deflect, but it isn't going to work.

ShooterTX said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

God was very clear that no one should bow to or worship any graven image.

---

Correct. Worshipping Christ is not idolatry. Venerating icons is not idolatry. We do not worship icons.

And you're the one dismissing the fourth commandment as "ceremonial".

---

Bowing to a statue of Mary is idolatry.

Nice attempt to deflect, but it isn't going to work.

---

That's your opinion.

We've already determined that in Christendom Exodus 20:4 "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:" is not applied like it is under Jewish law due to the incarnation. We have a civilization, homes, and cell phones that violate this every second.

On to Exodus 20:5 "Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them"

Idolatry is defined by intent. Better translations render the verse "You shall not worship them or serve them;" or "You are not to bow down to them in worship or serve them".

Is bowing to the King of England idolatry? No. So clearly the simple act of bowing does not constitute worship.

Realitybites said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Quote:

---

Second, there is nothing wrong with bowing to, praying through, and/or kissing an object. That's not worship. That's honor for the person it represents. It's the same as cultures that bow to one another or taking a knee to a girlfriend in proposal, asking a friend to pray for you, and/or kissing a picture of your family.

---

Let me help you out here.

The argument that bowing to, intercession, or kissing an object is worship requires the arguer to claim these actions must be criteria for worship. They don't practice any of those, therefore they've indicted themselves of not worshiping.

People don't realize they've made category errors like this and they get themselves into a pickle.
They'll move to special pleading next.

---

Directly from the mouth of God....

Exodus 20:4-5 NIV
[4] "You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. [5] You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,

Can you argue against the words of God? "You shall not bow down to them or worship them...", it seems very clear that God condemns the act of bowing down to a graven image. Strange that Catholics can't read this passage and obey it. They bow to images of Mary and the saints all the time.

---

This is where Christian Zionism falls short. The commandment not to make an image for yourself is from the obsolete Mosaic covenant. Muslims stole it from the Jews to the point that in Islam it is a violation to take a photograph of a human being. Christianity rests on Immanuel, God with us. God incarnate is about as direct an image in the form if something on earth that you can get. Christ is not a violation of Exodus 20:4. Icons are not a violation of Exodus 20:4. If this is your line of thinking, go through your house and take every family picture you have and burn it before casting the first stone.

---

Having pictures isn't icon veneration. Good lord - you consistently have no clue about the concepts you're arguing about, just like with sola scriptura. And what's worse, you don't even bother to learn when people point that out and correct yourself. You just keep repeating your ignorance like a broken record. Something is really wrong with people like this.

God incarnate isn't a man-made object. Equating Jesus to the man-made images that you bow to is about as ridiculous as anything that's ever been uttered.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

THREE HUNDRED YEARS after Jesus.

The books that your church accepted as New Testament canon were all written within 70 years of Jesus.

And you think three hundred years after Jesus "predates" your canon. This is the type of ridiculous thinking that your church's views stem from. Do we really need to say more?

---

Yet, the belief in the Assumption of Mary is over 1200 years before the so-called reformers made up sola-scriptura.

Do we really need to say more?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Yes, you are confused. As I recall, you merely gave their names, but did not provide ANY proof as to what they said that shows they supported icon veneration.

Go ahead, let's see what you think constitutes as "proof" of their support. That's what I was talking about regarding the eisegesis and complete miscomprehension of the concept by you that I was expecting.

---

And you said "Unanimous". Go ahead and list EVERY Church father and their "proof" that they rejected it.

Realitybites said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Good gosh! No Catholic believes that Mary is the same as the pagan goddess mentioned in Jerimiah.

---

Well, there was that whole Amazon synod business and the veneration of the pagan goddess Pachamama. But carry on.

---

This highly questionable display was NOT approved by the Pope and he offered no veneration of it.

It was supposed to represent "life". The statues were part of a tree-planting ceremony in the Vatican Gardens attended by Pope Francis. They were intended to represent life, fertility, and "Mother Earth" (Amazonian femininity.)

Pachamama is NOT an Amazonian word. It is Andean word.

Pope Francis stated that they were displayed "without idolatrous intentions."

I didn't like it. The Pope didn't like it.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

THREE HUNDRED YEARS after Jesus.

The books that your church accepted as New Testament canon were all written within 70 years of Jesus.

And you think three hundred years after Jesus "predates" your canon. This is the type of ridiculous thinking that your church's views stem from. Do we really need to say more?

---

Yet, the belief in the Assumption of Mary is over 1200 years before the so-called reformers made up sola-scriptura.

Do we really need to say more?

---

1200 years of error does not alll of the sudden make it scriptural or make it come from God.

The only thing being "made up" is your belief that sola scriptura was made up in 1500 AD.

Sola scriptura is sola apostles. Jesus only said the apostles' word would be infallible. So yeah, you DO need to say more. Tell us why we should believe that anything outside the apostles, i.e. your tradition (like the assumption of Mary), came from God.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Yes, you are confused. As I recall, you merely gave their names, but did not provide ANY proof as to what they said that shows they supported icon veneration.

Go ahead, let's see what you think constitutes as "proof" of their support. That's what I was talking about regarding the eisegesis and complete miscomprehension of the concept by you that I was expecting.

---

And you said "Unanimous". Go ahead and list EVERY Church father and their "proof" that they rejected it.

---

Thank you for demonstrating that you have completely lost the argument. You: "It's not unanimous because not every church father talked about it. Ha! Therefore, icon veneration was accepted by the early church!!"

Among all the writings from the early church about icon veneration, the testimony was unanimous - icon veneration was to be shunned. Trying to argue a technicality only shows how incredibly weak and baseless your argument is. It's time you stop being intellectually dishonest, and just accept the facts of church history.

Still waiting on you, or any of your RC and Orthodox friends, to answer my question from above:

From where, and based on what divine revelation from God, does the infallible interpretive authority of the Roman Catholic church over Scripture come? It has to be divinely revealed in order to be infallibly true, does it not? And if you say "from Scripture", then you're making a circular argument, are you not?

So... where?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Your denial of Augustine's clear and concise words is indicative of the desperation you have to stay in a lie. It is beyond remarkable, the grasp that the Devil has over you.

Here are his words again, so that the public can see for themselves how incredibly sad it is, the way you're gaslighting yourself:

"I have learned to hold only the Holy Scripture as inerrant. All others, no matter learned they may be, I only read in such a way that I do not hold what they say to be true unless they can prove their statements by the Holy Scripture or by clear reason." (Letter 82, Chapter 1)

---

I read the quotes fine. I also know that you (and other ardent and mislead protestants) have cherry picked I few quotes OUT OF CONTEXT to try to make St Augustine YOUR guy as a Church father.

Here is a quote from the website Unam Sanctum Catholic concerning this passage:

"Augustine is not setting up an opposition between Church Tradition and Sacred Scripture; he is merely saying that if it comes down to taking the word of Jerome, another bishop just as himself, or the Scriptures, he will yield to the Scriptures instead of to the opinions of a private theologian. This is still the Church's position today: Church dogma, whether it is found in Scripture or Tradition, trumps the views of private theologians."
Augustine is saying that the person he's writing the letter to is not bound to him, and he confirms that Augustine, he says of himself, is not bound to the Counsel of Ariminum.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"Do not follow my writings as Holy Scripture. When you find in Holy Scripture anything you did not believe before, believe it without doubt; but in my writings, you should hold nothing for certain." (On the Trinity, Book 3)

---

This quote is saying that his writings are NOT inspired in the same way as the Bible and should not be treated as equally authoritative.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"But there are others who do not say that all these truths are false. They honour your sacred Scripture, which you gave to us through your holy servant Moses, and just as I do, they look on it as the highest authority that we must follow."
In these quotes, Augustine was talking about local church councils that are not infallible.

---

According to the research that I found on this passage which appears to have come from Contra Faustum (Against Faustus), who dismissed the Old Testament, it is a quote affirming that all Moses wrote must be accepted.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

It is beyond remarkable, the degree to which people will lie to themselves and deny what's right in front of their eyes in order to preserve their own psyche. Immature self defense mechanisms are a real and significant thing that keeps people in darkness.

---

It's remarkable that no other Church father for another 1200 years exposed his sola scriptura views. No one called him out. It's interesting that you don't share his view expressed in other parts of his writings such as his beliefs in infant baptism and original sin (not expressly called out in the bible), immaculate conception, perpetual virginity of Mary, purgatory, confession of sin to a priest, the real presence of the Eucharist.

Why is that? It's because when we look at the body of his writings, he OBVIOUSLY did NOT believe in your view of sola scriptura.

Augustine absolutely believed in the authority of the Church

"I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so,"

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

THREE HUNDRED YEARS after Jesus.

The books that your church accepted as New Testament canon were all written within 70 years of Jesus.

And you think three hundred years after Jesus "predates" your canon. This is the type of ridiculous thinking that your church's views stem from. Do we really need to say more?

---

Yet, the belief in the Assumption of Mary is over 1200 years before the so-called reformers made up sola-scriptura.

Do we really need to say more?

---

Sola scriptura is sola apostles. Jesus only said the apostles' word would be infallible. So yeah, you DO need to say more. Tell us why we should believe that anything outside the apostles, i.e. your tradition (like the assumption of Mary), came from God.

---

You tell us. Why should we believe anything in the Gospels of Mark and Luke?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oh, the apparition converted millions, alright. To her, not to Jesus.

The real Mary, or any true messenger from God for that matter, would not have followers dedicate a church in her honor, make sacrifices for sin, offer devotion to her "immaculate heart", or make reparations in order to "console" her.

It is abundantly clear that anyone who can't see this for what it really is, an anti-Christ spirit, is completely lost.

---

Please cite the source that states that they were ALL converted to her.

All of the converted were baptized by water using the Trinitarian formula. Not in the name of Mary.

This is ANOTHER falsehood that continue to spew when you have no foundation other than lies.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

THREE HUNDRED YEARS after Jesus.

The books that your church accepted as New Testament canon were all written within 70 years of Jesus.

And you think three hundred years after Jesus "predates" your canon. This is the type of ridiculous thinking that your church's views stem from. Do we really need to say more?

---

Yet, the belief in the Assumption of Mary is over 1200 years before the so-called reformers made up sola-scriptura.

Do we really need to say more?

---

Sola scriptura is sola apostles. Jesus only said the apostles' word would be infallible. So yeah, you DO need to say more. Tell us why we should believe that anything outside the apostles, i.e. your tradition (like the assumption of Mary), came from God.

---

You tell us. Why should we believe anything in the Gospels of Mark and Luke?

---

Because we believe in the apostles' testimony of the risen Jesus, and per the chain of testimony that started all the way back with the first believers who were first hand witnesses to everything, the Gospels of Mark and Luke were the recorded testimonies and acts of the apostles?

Was that supposed to be hard?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Thank you for demonstrating that you have completely lost the argument. You: "It's not unanimous because not every church father talked about it. Ha! Therefore, icon veneration was accepted by the early church!!"

Among all the writings from the early church about icon veneration, the testimony was unanimous - icon veneration was to be shunned. Trying to argue a technicality only shows how incredibly weak and baseless your argument is. It's time you stop being intellectually dishonest, and just accept the facts of church history.

---

You have once again created a strawman argument. Most of your post do this.

I mentioned in a previous post why some of the Church fathers rejected it. As time progressed and paganism waned, the Church realized that Icons can be useful tools for evangelizing and aiding in prayer.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oh, the apparition converted millions, alright. To her, not to Jesus.

The real Mary, or any true messenger from God for that matter, would not have followers dedicate a church in her honor, make sacrifices for sin, offer devotion to her "immaculate heart", or make reparations in order to "console" her.

It is abundantly clear that anyone who can't see this for what it really is, an anti-Christ spirit, is completely lost.

---

Please cite the source that states that they were ALL converted to her.

All of the converted were baptized by water using the Trinitarian formula. Not in the name of Mary.

This is ANOTHER falsehood that continue to spew when you have no foundation other than lies.

---

Who said they were ALL converted to her? And why don't you cite the source that says they were converted to actual Christianity, instead of resulting in the Mary worship that pervades the Latin American Catholic churches?

You can strain yourself to avoid the fact that the appartion commanded its believers to perform and believe anti-Christian things all you want... but the fact is plain to everyone, even to the dumbest, most immature baby true Christians, that those apparitions were not from God, and were in fact evil.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Thank you for demonstrating that you have completely lost the argument. You: "It's not unanimous because not every church father talked about it. Ha! Therefore, icon veneration was accepted by the early church!!"

Among all the writings from the early church about icon veneration, the testimony was unanimous - icon veneration was to be shunned. Trying to argue a technicality only shows how incredibly weak and baseless your argument is. It's time you stop being intellectually dishonest, and just accept the facts of church history.

---

You have once again created a strawman argument. Most of your post do this.

I mentioned in a previous post why some of the Church fathers rejected it. As time progressed and paganism waned, the Church realized that Icons can be useful tools for evangelizing and aiding in prayer.

---

Show where the early church made a concession that once paganism waned, then icon veneration would be okay.

Complete BS, as usual.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

THREE HUNDRED YEARS after Jesus.

The books that your church accepted as New Testament canon were all written within 70 years of Jesus.

And you think three hundred years after Jesus "predates" your canon. This is the type of ridiculous thinking that your church's views stem from. Do we really need to say more?

---

Yet, the belief in the Assumption of Mary is over 1200 years before the so-called reformers made up sola-scriptura.

Do we really need to say more?

---

Sola scriptura is sola apostles. Jesus only said the apostles' word would be infallible. So yeah, you DO need to say more. Tell us why we should believe that anything outside the apostles, i.e. your tradition (like the assumption of Mary), came from God.

---

You tell us. Why should we believe anything in the Gospels of Mark and Luke?

---

Because we believe in the apostles' testimony of the risen Jesus, and per the chain of testimony that started all the way back with the first believers who were first hand witnesses to everything, the Gospels of Mark and Luke were the recorded testimonies and acts of the apostles?

Was that supposed to be hard?

---

And there are plenty of other texts for which the same claims were made. So again the question.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Still waiting on you, or any of your RC and Orthodox friends, to answer my question from above:

From where, and based on what divine revelation from God, does the infallible interpretive authority of the Roman Catholic church over Scripture come? It has to be divinely revealed in order to be infallibly true, does it not? And if you say "from Scripture", then you're making a circular argument, are you not?

So... where?

---

Thank you for the opportunity to lay out the Catholic position! -


Matthew 16:18 -

Jesus tells Simon Peter, "You are Peter (meaning 'rock'), and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it"

Jesus establishes Peter as the leader of His Church giving him authority over spiritual matters.


Matthew 18:18 -

"Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven,"

This is the authority that Jesus gave to the Church's leaders to guide the faithful in understanding and applying God's word.


John 14:26 -

But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

Tho Holy Spirit's guidance ensures that the Church will remain faithful to Christ's teachings and accurately interprets scripture.


Note that Jesus was speaking to his 12 apostles only here.



Acts 15:28 -

For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to impose on you no further burden than these necessities.

This indicates the Church's role in making binding decisions for the faithful, inspirited by the Holy Spirit.


1 Tim 3:15 -

The Church is the "the pillar and bulwark of the truth."

Paul highlights the role in upholding and transmitting the truth of the Gospel.


Apostolic succession can be demonstrated using Acts 1:20-26, 2 Tim 2:2, Titus 1:5, 1 Tim 4:14, and Acts 14:23.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

THREE HUNDRED YEARS after Jesus.

The books that your church accepted as New Testament canon were all written within 70 years of Jesus.

And you think three hundred years after Jesus "predates" your canon. This is the type of ridiculous thinking that your church's views stem from. Do we really need to say more?

---

Yet, the belief in the Assumption of Mary is over 1200 years before the so-called reformers made up sola-scriptura.

Do we really need to say more?

---

Sola scriptura is sola apostles. Jesus only said the apostles' word would be infallible. So yeah, you DO need to say more. Tell us why we should believe that anything outside the apostles, i.e. your tradition (like the assumption of Mary), came from God.

---

You tell us. Why should we believe anything in the Gospels of Mark and Luke?

---

Because we believe in the apostles' testimony of the risen Jesus, and per the chain of testimony that started all the way back with the first believers who were first hand witnesses to everything, the Gospels of Mark and Luke were the recorded testimonies and acts of the apostles?

Was that supposed to be hard?

---

And there are plenty of other texts for which the same claims were made.

---

..... which did not have the chain of testimony that went back to the first believers who witnessed the apostles preaching' firsthand.

And can you cite your evidence for these "other texts" with the same claim during the first century church?

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Still waiting on you, or any of your RC and Orthodox friends, to answer my question from above:

From where, and based on what divine revelation from God, does the infallible interpretive authority of the Roman Catholic church over Scripture come? It has to be divinely revealed in order to be infallibly true, does it not? And if you say "from Scripture", then you're making a circular argument, are you not?

So... where?

---

Thank you for the opportunity to lay out the Catholic position! -


Matthew 16:18 -

Jesus tells Simon Peter, "You are Peter (meaning 'rock'), and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it"

Jesus establishes Peter as the leader of His Church giving him authority over spiritual matters.


Matthew 18:18 -

"Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven,"

This is the authority that Jesus gave to the Church's leaders to guide the faithful in understanding and applying God's word.


John 14:26 -

But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

Tho Holy Spirit's guidance ensures that the Church will remain faithful to Christ's teachings and accurately interprets scripture.


Note that Jesus was speaking to his 12 apostles only here.



Acts 15:28 -

For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to impose on you no further burden than these necessities.

This indicates the Church's role in making binding decisions for the faithful, inspirited by the Holy Spirit.


1 Tim 3:15 -

The Church is the "the pillar and bulwark of the truth."

Paul highlights the role in upholding and transmitting the truth of the Gospel.


Apostolic succession can be demonstrated using Acts 1:20-26, 2 Tim 2:2, Titus 1:5, 1 Tim 4:14, and Acts 14:23.

---

Did you seriously not comprehend where I said that arguing that "it's from Scripture" makes your argument circular, and thus a fallacy? I really do wonder about you.

So thank YOU, for demonstrating that your entire argument for interpretive infallibility of your church is based on a logical fallacy.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Still waiting on you, or any of your RC and Orthodox friends, to answer my question from above:

From where, and based on what divine revelation from God, does the infallible interpretive authority of the Roman Catholic church over Scripture come? It has to be divinely revealed in order to be infallibly true, does it not? And if you say "from Scripture", then you're making a circular argument, are you not?

So... where?

---

Thank you for the opportunity to lay out the Catholic position! -


Matthew 16:18 -

Jesus tells Simon Peter, "You are Peter (meaning 'rock'), and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it"

Jesus establishes Peter as the leader of His Church giving him authority over spiritual matters.


Matthew 18:18 -

"Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven,"

This is the authority that Jesus gave to the Church's leaders to guide the faithful in understanding and applying God's word.


John 14:26 -

But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

Tho Holy Spirit's guidance ensures that the Church will remain faithful to Christ's teachings and accurately interprets scripture.


Note that Jesus was speaking to his 12 apostles only here.



Acts 15:28 -

For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to impose on you no further burden than these necessities.

This indicates the Church's role in making binding decisions for the faithful, inspirited by the Holy Spirit.


1 Tim 3:15 -

The Church is the "the pillar and bulwark of the truth."

Paul highlights the role in upholding and transmitting the truth of the Gospel.


Apostolic succession can be demonstrated using Acts 1:20-26, 2 Tim 2:2, Titus 1:5, 1 Tim 4:14, and Acts 14:23.

---

Did you seriously not comprehend where I said that arguing that "it's from Scripture" makes your argument circular, and thus a fallacy? I really do wonder about you.

So thank YOU, for demonstrating that your entire argument for interpretive infallibility of your church is based on a logical fallacy.

---

I used your false sola scriptura to demonstrate actual Catholic infallible authority, but I've used a circular argument yet use the bible to demonstrate sola scriptura.

The irony is crazy.

Tell me again where the Bible says Mark and Hebrews should be in the Bible.
Tell me where the Bible says that there will be no more apostles.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Still waiting on you, or any of your RC and Orthodox friends, to answer my question from above:

From where, and based on what divine revelation from God, does the infallible interpretive authority of the Roman Catholic church over Scripture come? It has to be divinely revealed in order to be infallibly true, does it not? And if you say "from Scripture", then you're making a circular argument, are you not?

So... where?

---

Thank you for the opportunity to lay out the Catholic position! -


Matthew 16:18 -

Jesus tells Simon Peter, "You are Peter (meaning 'rock'), and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it"

Jesus establishes Peter as the leader of His Church giving him authority over spiritual matters.


Matthew 18:18 -

"Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven,"

This is the authority that Jesus gave to the Church's leaders to guide the faithful in understanding and applying God's word.


John 14:26 -

But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

Tho Holy Spirit's guidance ensures that the Church will remain faithful to Christ's teachings and accurately interprets scripture.


Note that Jesus was speaking to his 12 apostles only here.



Acts 15:28 -

For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to impose on you no further burden than these necessities.

This indicates the Church's role in making binding decisions for the faithful, inspirited by the Holy Spirit.


1 Tim 3:15 -

The Church is the "the pillar and bulwark of the truth."

Paul highlights the role in upholding and transmitting the truth of the Gospel.


Apostolic succession can be demonstrated using Acts 1:20-26, 2 Tim 2:2, Titus 1:5, 1 Tim 4:14, and Acts 14:23.

---

Did you seriously not comprehend where I said that arguing that "it's from Scripture" makes your argument circular, and thus a fallacy? I really do wonder about you.

So thank YOU, for demonstrating that your entire argument for interpretive infallibility of your church is based on a logical fallacy.

---

I used your false sola scriptura to demonstrate actual Catholic infallible authority, but I've used a circular argument yet use the bible to demonstrate sola scriptura.

The irony is crazy.

Tell me again where the Bible says Mark and Hebrews should be in the Bible.
Tell me where the Bible says that there will be no more apostles.

---

You: "I've used a circular argument..."

Thank you for conceding the point - your church's claim of interpretive infallibility of Scripture is baseless. You should stop making the claim. I will point everyone to this moment whenever you do.

The irony is that without referencing the Church Fathers, nobody would know that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John weren't actually Bubba, Jimbob, Fred, and David. There is nothing in the Biblical text that tells the reader what the names of the four gospels are.

So every time a Baptist preacher says "turn in your Bibles to John ..." he is making an extrabiblical reference to Saint Ignatius.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You: "I've used a circular argument..."

Thank you for conceding the point - your church's claim of interpretive infallibility of Scripture is baseless. You should stop making the claim. I will point everyone to this moment whenever you do.

---

Just like Jesus used only the Torah to refute the Sadducees, I used the Bible to scripturally prove infallibility of the Church.

Please let me know what other proof that you would like for infallibility.

Please give us your proof for sola scriptura using the same criteria.

Also, where does the bible claim that there will be no more apostles?

It is a false claim that my proof is a circular argument. I've shown Biblically how the Church can claim infallibility.


PS: If I used any of the Ecumenical councils as proof of infallibility would you accept that? No, of course you wouldn't. You would claim that it's a circular argument that Church makes the claim of infallibility using it's own documents.

I don't think you understand circular arguments.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You: "I've used a circular argument..."

Thank you for conceding the point - your church's claim of interpretive infallibility of Scripture is baseless. You should stop making the claim. I will point everyone to this moment whenever you do.

---

Just like Jesus used only the Torah to refute the Sadducees, I used the Bible to scripturally prove infallibility of the Church.

Please let me know what other proof that you would like for infallibility.

Please give us your proof for sola scriptura using the same criteria.

Also, where does the bible claim that there will be no more apostles?

It is a false claim that my proof is a circular argument. I've shown Biblically how the Church can claim infallibility.


PS: If I used any of the Ecumenical councils as proof of infallibility would you accept that? No, of course you wouldn't. You would claim that it's a circular argument that Church makes the claim of infallibility using it's own documents.

I don't think you understand circular arguments.

---

You are literally arguing that your church has interpretive infallibility over Scripture, because Scripture says so by your church's interpretation. If you truly can't recognize this as a circular argument, then you have a significant thinking and comprehension deficiency. Please go find someone who can explain and show this to you.

Your other comments in this post demonstrate this deficiency in basic logic and reasoning even further: 1) sola scriptura is not a scripturally derived principle, nor does it have to be; 2) there can't be any more original apostles, because you can't have "new" original apostles - if they're "new", then they're not original; 3) yes, an ecumenical council arguing that their councils are infallible because an ecumenical council said so is clearly a circular argument.

Good lord. What they say is so, so, true - you just can't argue with stupidity.

Realitybites said:

---

The irony is that without referencing the Church Fathers, nobody would know that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John weren't actually Bubba, Jimbob, Fred, and David. There is nothing in the Biblical text that tells the reader what the names of the four gospels are.

So every time a Baptist preacher says "turn in your Bibles to John ..." he is making an extrabiblical reference to Saint Ignatius.

---

To know ANY fact of history, we must rely on the faithful transmission of the witness of those who preceded us. Citing the Gospel of John is no more a reference to the church fathers as is citing a fact of the Civil War a reference to Civil War historians.

There's no "irony" to your point at all. In fact, the only irony is that your point is rather pointless.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You are literally arguing that your church has interpretive infallibility over Scripture, because Scripture says so by your church's interpretation. If you truly can't recognize this as a circular argument, then you have a significant thinking and comprehension deficiency. Please go find someone who can explain and show this to you.

Your other comments in this post demonstrate this deficiency in basic logic and reasoning even further: 1) sola scriptura is not a scripturally derived principle, nor does it have to be; 2) there can't be any more original apostles, because you can't have "new" original apostles - if they're "new", then they're not original; 3) yes, an ecumenical council arguing that their councils are infallible because an ecumenical council said so is clearly a circular argument.

Good lord. What they say is so, so, true - you just can't argue with stupidity.

---

So where did sola scriptura come from and what proves it?

I never said new "original" apostles. I said, "new apostles". Why can't there be any new apostles? How is that proved by sola scriptura?

How does sola scriptura prove that Mark and Hebrews are canon?

How does sola scriptura prove that there will be no more inspired writing?

How does sola scriptura prove that public revelation has ended?

You never what evidence that you want to defend infallibility of the Church. I cited the Bible. You just don't agree because it's logically correct.

I can back it with the earliest Church fathers -

St. Irenaeus: Wherefore it is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the certain [or infallible] gift of truth [charisma veritatis certum], according to the good pleasure of the Father. (Against Heresies, 4, 26, 2)

St. Clement of Alexandria: So also are we bound in no way to transgress the canon of the Church. … In the truth alone and in the ancient Church is both the most exact knowledge, and the truly best set of principles (airesis). (Stromata, VII, 15)

St. Clement of Alexandria - So also are we bound in no way to transgress the canon of the Church. … In the truth alone and in the ancient Church is both the most exact knowledge, and the truly best set of principles (airesis). (Stromata, VII, 15)

St. Cyprian: Although long since it was decreed, in a council of the bishops ... (Epistle 65, 1)

St. Basil the Great: You should confess the faith put forth by our Fathers once assembled at Nica, that you should not omit any one of its propositions, but bear in mind that the 318 who met together without strife did not speak without the operation of the Holy Ghost ... (Letter 114 to Cyriacus, at Tarsus)

St. Gregory Nazianzen: I never have and never can honor anything above the Nicene Faith, that of the Holy Fathers who met there to destroy the Arian heresy; but am, and by God's help ever will be, of that faith ... (Letter 102: Second to Cledonius the Priest, Against Apollinarius)

St. Ambrose: Of the Acts of Councils, I shall let that one be my chief guide which 318 priests [at the Council of Nicaea], appointed, as it were, after the judgment of Abraham, made (so to speak) a trophy raised to proclaim their victory over the infidel throughout the world, prevailing by that courage of the Faith, wherein all agreed. Verily, as it seems to me, one may herein see the hand of God ... (Exposition of the Christian Faith, Bk. I, Prologue, section 5)

St. Athanasius: Who will not denounce their audacity ... [who] would forcibly cancel the decrees of an uncorrupt, pure and Ecumenical Council? (Ad Episcopos Aegypti et Libyae, 7)

St. Cyril of Alexandria: He opposes the truth and the very symbol of the Church's faith, which the Fathers once gathered together at Nicaea through the illumination of the Spirit defined; he, fearing lest any should keep whole the Faith, instructed unto the truth by their words, endeavors to calumniate it and alters the significance of the words ... against the holy Fathers who have decreed for us the pious definition of the Faith which we have as an anchor of the soul both sure and steadfast, as it is written. (Tomes Against Nestorius: I, 5)

St. Cyril of Alexandria: The holy Churches in every region under Heaven, and the venerable Fathers themselves who put forth unto us the definition of the right and undefiled Faith, viz. (the Holy Ghost speaking in them) that the Word of God was made flesh and became Man ... (Tomes Against Nestorius: IV, 2)

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You are literally arguing that your church has interpretive infallibility over Scripture, because Scripture says so by your church's interpretation. If you truly can't recognize this as a circular argument, then you have a significant thinking and comprehension deficiency. Please go find someone who can explain and show this to you.

Your other comments in this post demonstrate this deficiency in basic logic and reasoning even further: 1) sola scriptura is not a scripturally derived principle, nor does it have to be; 2) there can't be any more original apostles, because you can't have "new" original apostles - if they're "new", then they're not original; 3) yes, an ecumenical council arguing that their councils are infallible because an ecumenical council said so is clearly a circular argument.

Good lord. What they say is so, so, true - you just can't argue with stupidity.

---

So where did sola scriptura come from and what proves it?

I never said new "original" apostles. I said, "new apostles". Why can't there be any new apostles? How is that proved by sola scriptura?

How does sola scriptura prove that Mark and Hebrews are canon?

How does sola scriptura prove that there will be no more inspired writing?

How does sola scriptura prove that public revelation has ended?

You never what evidence that you want to defend infallibility of the Church. I cited the Bible. You just don't agree because it's logically correct.

I can back it with the earliest Church fathers -

St. Irenaeus: Wherefore it is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the certain [or infallible] gift of truth [charisma veritatis certum], according to the good pleasure of the Father. (Against Heresies, 4, 26, 2)

St. Clement of Alexandria: So also are we bound in no way to transgress the canon of the Church. … In the truth alone and in the ancient Church is both the most exact knowledge, and the truly best set of principles (airesis). (Stromata, VII, 15)

St. Clement of Alexandria - So also are we bound in no way to transgress the canon of the Church. … In the truth alone and in the ancient Church is both the most exact knowledge, and the truly best set of principles (airesis). (Stromata, VII, 15)

St. Cyprian: Although long since it was decreed, in a council of the bishops ... (Epistle 65, 1)

St. Basil the Great: You should confess the faith put forth by our Fathers once assembled at Nica, that you should not omit any one of its propositions, but bear in mind that the 318 who met together without strife did not speak without the operation of the Holy Ghost ... (Letter 114 to Cyriacus, at Tarsus)

St. Gregory Nazianzen: I never have and never can honor anything above the Nicene Faith, that of the Holy Fathers who met there to destroy the Arian heresy; but am, and by God's help ever will be, of that faith ... (Letter 102: Second to Cledonius the Priest, Against Apollinarius)

St. Ambrose: Of the Acts of Councils, I shall let that one be my chief guide which 318 priests [at the Council of Nicaea], appointed, as it were, after the judgment of Abraham, made (so to speak) a trophy raised to proclaim their victory over the infidel throughout the world, prevailing by that courage of the Faith, wherein all agreed. Verily, as it seems to me, one may herein see the hand of God ... (Exposition of the Christian Faith, Bk. I, Prologue, section 5)

St. Athanasius: Who will not denounce their audacity ... [who] would forcibly cancel the decrees of an uncorrupt, pure and Ecumenical Council? (Ad Episcopos Aegypti et Libyae, 7)

St. Cyril of Alexandria: He opposes the truth and the very symbol of the Church's faith, which the Fathers once gathered together at Nicaea through the illumination of the Spirit defined; he, fearing lest any should keep whole the Faith, instructed unto the truth by their words, endeavors to calumniate it and alters the significance of the words ... against the holy Fathers who have decreed for us the pious definition of the Faith which we have as an anchor of the soul both sure and steadfast, as it is written. (Tomes Against Nestorius: I, 5)

St. Cyril of Alexandria: The holy Churches in every region under Heaven, and the venerable Fathers themselves who put forth unto us the definition of the right and undefiled Faith, viz. (the Holy Ghost speaking in them) that the Word of God was made flesh and became Man ... (Tomes Against Nestorius: IV, 2)

---

Your comment is demonstrating that you just don't understand what sola scriptura is and means, and you haven't paid any attention to or comprehended anything I've been saying. You're just stuck in a broken record, repeating the same failed arguments, misconceptions, and non sequiturs.

Combined with the fact that you could not even understand that your claim of interpretive infallibility for your church was completely based on a circular argument... and we've got an intellectual impasse. I'm sorry, but you're simply not intelligent enough to understand the concepts involved in this debate. Perhaps you should just move on to something else.

Here in your latest post, you're arguing that your church's interpretive infallibility is based on certain church fathers saying so (many of which aren't even saying that the church is infallible in interpreting Scripture, yet another non sequitur) - furthering the conclusion that your claim is based merely on the fallible claims of men, not on God's infallible divine revelation.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Your comment is demonstrating that you just don't understand what sola scriptura is and means, and you haven't paid any attention to or comprehended anything I've been saying. You're just stuck in a broken record, repeating the same failed arguments, misconceptions, and non sequiturs.

Combined with the fact that you could not even understand that your claim of interpretive infallibility for your church was completely based on a circular argument... and we've got an intellectual impasse. I'm sorry, but you're simply not intelligent enough to understand the concepts involved in this debate. Perhaps you should just move on to something else.

Here in your latest post, you're arguing that your church's interpretive infallibility is based on certain church fathers saying so (many of which aren't even saying that the church is infallible in interpreting Scripture, yet another non sequitur) - furthering the conclusion that your claim is based merely on the fallible claims of men, not on God's infallible divine revelation.

---

As I understand your point about sola scriptura to be is Bible is the ONLY infallible source.

I, and the Church reject this. What make one think that this is viable?

It cannot be proven. It is not logical. An infallible source is worthless without an infallible interpreter.

In your model, one can interpret the Bible however they like. No one can argue against another's hermeneutics. Look at something as "simple" as baptismal regeneration. Even protestants are split on this. Both can argue their side with scriptural interpretations. Both CAN'T be right. There is only ONE TRUTH.

Finally, I presented biblical evidence for Church's rationale for her infallibility. The Bible says that the Church is infallible. That's not circular. You've turned it into a circular argument. I then demonstrated that Church fathers believed that the Church had infallibility, which I stated that you would reject. You did. (Surprise face)

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Your comment is demonstrating that you just don't understand what sola scriptura is and means, and you haven't paid any attention to or comprehended anything I've been saying. You're just stuck in a broken record, repeating the same failed arguments, misconceptions, and non sequiturs.

Combined with the fact that you could not even understand that your claim of interpretive infallibility for your church was completely based on a circular argument... and we've got an intellectual impasse. I'm sorry, but you're simply not intelligent enough to understand the concepts involved in this debate. Perhaps you should just move on to something else.

Here in your latest post, you're arguing that your church's interpretive infallibility is based on certain church fathers saying so (many of which aren't even saying that the church is infallible in interpreting Scripture, yet another non sequitur) - furthering the conclusion that your claim is based merely on the fallible claims of men, not on God's infallible divine revelation.

---

As I understand your point about sola scriptura to be is Bible is the ONLY infallible source.

I, and the Church reject this. What make one think that this is viable?

It cannot be proven. It is not logical. An infallible source is worthless without an infallible interpreter.

In your model, one can interpret the Bible however they like. No one can argue against another's hermeneutics. Look at something as "simple" as baptismal regeneration. Even protestants are split on this. Both can argue their side with scriptural interpretations.Both CAN'T be right. There is only ONE TRUTH.

Finally, I presented biblical evidence for Church's rationale for her infallibility. The Bible says that the Church is infallible. That's not circular. You've turned it into a circular argument. I then demonstrated that Church fathers believed that the Church had infallibility, which I stated that you would reject. You did. (Surprise face)

---

You can't argue that your church has infallibility over the interpretation of Scripture, because Scripture says so according to your church's interpretation. That's like saying the Bible is true, because it says so in the Bible. If you can't understand that is a circular argument, then no one can help you there.

Sola scriptura IS logical. If everything you have that you know is the divine word of God is in Scripture, then by definition everything outside of it is NOT. Since ONLY God's word is infallible, then it follows that Scripture is the only thing the church has in its possession which it knows is infallible, and everything outside of it is not. If you disagree with this because you think man's word is also infallible, then you are outside the beliefs of Christianity.

If you believe that your church is also infallible, then there are at least two gigantic problems there:

• this belief is based on circular logic, and the fallible words of the church fathers
• There is absolutely NO support for icon veneration in Scripture nor the early church - but your church made it a requirement in one of their ecumenical councils upon pain of anathema. Meaning, your council made something that was completely shunned by Scripture and the early church a requirement for salvation.

If you can't see how making icon veneration a requirement for salvation represents a CLEAR departure from the original faith, hence an ERROR, then again, there is no helping you there. Trust me, the only "suprise face" here is about your inability to make these very basic connections.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You can't argue that your church has infallibility over the interpretation of Scripture, because Scripture says so according to your church's interpretation. That's like saying the Bible is true, because it says so in the Bible. If you can't understand that is a circular argument, then no one can help you there.

---

EVERY verse in scripture is subject to interpretation. I laid out a biblical and logical defense for the infallibility.

I'll state it in a less circular fashion

Historically, the Church functions as the community that preserved, canonized, and interpreted scripture, which support her claim to interpretive authority.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sola scriptura IS logical. If everything you have that you know is the divine word of God is in Scripture, then by definition everything outside of it is NOT. Since ONLY God's word is infallible, then it follows that Scripture is the only thing the church has in its possession which it knows is infallible, and everything outside of it is not. If you disagree with this because you think man's word is also infallible, then you are outside the beliefs of Christianity.

---

First, some group had to recognize what was God's word and what wasn't. As you know, debate over several books (canonical and non-canonical) raged for more than two centuries. It was hardly clear what was God's word.

Also, it is YOUR assumption that ONLY God's word is infallible. You are taking a major leap here. The Bible never makes the claim that ONLY God's word is infallible.

But let's say that your view is correct, that ONLY God's word in infallible, then how can you have assurance of anything found outside of the bible?

How can you be sure that public revelation has ended?
How can you be sure that there will be no more apostles?
How can you be sure that Mark and Hebrews are canon?

These are commonly held beliefs that all Christians hold, but cannot be found in the bible. What give you the authority to believe them.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If you believe that your church is also infallible, then there are at least two gigantic problems there:
this belief is based on circular logic, and the fallible words of the church fathers

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

There is absolutely NO support for icon veneration in Scripture nor the early church - but your church made it a requirement in one of their ecumenical councils upon pain of anathema. Meaning, your council made something that was completely shunned by Scripture and the early church a requirement for salvation.

If you can't see how making icon veneration a requirement for salvation represents a CLEAR departure from the original faith, hence an ERROR, then again, there is no helping you there. Trust me, the only "suprise face" here is about your inability to make these very basic connections.

---

You have misunderstood (possibly twisted) what the council actually said.

No council said that Icon veneration is "a requirement for salvation". No council anathematized anyone for not venerating icons.

What the council said is that the Church anathematizes those that reject icon veneration.

Also you misunderstand what it means to be anathematized. It means to be excommunicated (or condemned) by the Church. To be excommunicated is medicinal, rather than punitive. It means that a person cannot participate in the sacramental life of the Church. They cannot receive the Eucharist or Reconciliation until the excommunication is lifted. They can still attend mass.

The hope of the Church is that person will repent of that sin so that the excommunication can be lifted.

Since you've never been Catholic, you cannot be anathematized.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You can't argue that your church has infallibility over the interpretation of Scripture, because Scripture says so according to your church's interpretation. That's like saying the Bible is true, because it says so in the Bible. If you can't understand that is a circular argument, then no one can help you there.

---

EVERY verse in scripture is subject to interpretation. I laid out a biblical and logical defense for the infallibility.

I'll state it in a less circular fashion

Historically, the Church functions as the community that preserved, canonized, and interpreted scripture, which support her claim to interpretive authority.

---

Does it support her claim to infallible interpretive authority, which was your claim? Once again, you've either become lost as to what your original claim was, or you're retreating from it.

And no, you didn't make a "biblical case" for infallibility. None of what you cited has anything to do with infallibility. They're entirely non sequiturs. You argue that it's an infallible interpretation of those verses, because your church has that infallibility. Which of course, is based on their interpretation of those very same verses. That's where the circularity arises.