Word of God vs. Scripture

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

The Word of God vs. Scripture -

Within the forum here, I have gotten mixed information [or at least seems so to me] about The Word of God and Scripture. This is what I have seen. Please state your opinion or what the Catholic Church teaches - but make sure you note which it is.

1] Is the Word of God and the Scripture the same? Why or Why not?

2] Is the Word of God only contained in the Scripture? If so, what is the difference and how do you tell which is which?

3] Is the Word of God and Scripture inerrant? Or just the Word of God? How do you know?

4] Is the Word of God and Scripture [if different] both inspired by the Holy Spirit? If not, why not?

Looking forward to your answers!

-- Tim, the Baptist (tlw97@cox.net), January 10, 2003

Answers

Be honest with yourself when you answer... And don't worry about what someone here might think.

God Bless!

-- Tim, the Baptist (tlw97@cox.net), January 10, 2003.


You are reading the Holy Bible; and that's the Word of God. But God's Word isn't limited to the Bible.

The Word of God is also seen as His Divine Son; the Word-- Who is with God in the beginning; ''and the word was with God.''--( John 1, :1)

Needless to say this Word of God is not the Bible, neither Old nor New Testaments. Nor did Jesus Christ write a Bible. Not ONE passage.

His Word is true in Sacred Tradition, however. As part of our Church's holy teaching from the apostles and their disciples; from the day of Pentecost till now. This is a living Tradition, aware of all truth in the Holy Spirit; as Christ explained to His Church in chapters 15 and 16 of John's gospel. The Word that never fails our Church. --Infallible until the end of the world.

You can read only a segment of the Word of God in holy scripture. It is certainly indispensable and sacred. Without this segment, man will not know first that Christ came into the world to save us.

However, Christ Himself gave His Church to us-- His followers. The Church which brought the faith to all the nations. The Church is just as indispensable, just as Holy as the Bible. Both have come forth from God.

This is taught the whole world by the Church. In this truth we accept the Creed of the apostles, the Bible, and revelations through saints and Tradition, as well as all dogmas declared by the rule of the Holy Spirit, even to modern times. All is the Word of God, Tim. All inerrant and living in the Catholic Church.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 10, 2003.


1] Is the Word of God and the Scripture the same? Why or Why not?

The scriptures are that part of the Word of God which were commited to writing at some point in time after they were given verbally to the Church, and which were subsequently defined by the Church as divinely inspired.

2] Is the Word of God only contained in the Scripture? If so, what is the difference and how do you tell which is which?

Of course not. The New Testament writings were not defined as scripture until the end of the 4th century. But the ideas contained in those writings were the Word of God as soon as Jesus spoke them, years before they were written down. You know which non-written teachings are the Word of God in exactly the same way you know which written teachings are the Word of God - by the infallible pronouncement of God's Church. There is NO other way to identify the Word of God, written or spoken.

3] Is the Word of God and Scripture inerrant? Or just the Word of God? How do you know?

The Word of God, written or spoken, is inerrant in content; but that content, like any written text, cannot be accessed except through the process of interpretation. Therefore, one's interpretation of the Word of God, and one's resultant beliefs, are NOT inerrant unless one's source of interpretation is infallible.

4] Is the Word of God and Scripture [if different] both inspired by the Holy Spirit? If not, why not?

Yes, the Word of God, including but not limited to those portions which were eventually written down and included in the canon of scripture, is inspired by the Holy Spirit.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 11, 2003.


Eugene,

"You are reading the Holy Bible; and that's the Word of God. But God's Word isn't limited to the Bible."

So, you consider Scripture and the Word of God to be the same, but that there is also more to the Word of God than just Scripture?

"The Church is just as indispensable, just as Holy as the Bible."

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this.

"All inerrant and living in the Catholic Church."

So, you believe that Scripture is inerrant? I'm not talking about interpretation, but what is written itself.

continue...

-- Tim, the Baptist (tlw97@cox.net), January 11, 2003.


Paul,

"The scriptures are that part of the Word of God which were commited to writing at some point in time after they were given verbally to the Church, and which were subsequently defined by the Church as divinely inspired."

So, you also believe that Scripture is the Word of God, but only part of it?

I thought you told me in the other thread that the Word of God was only contained in Scripture with the rest of Scripture being "simply necessary surrounding and supportive text".

"Therefore, one's interpretation of the Word of God, and one's resultant beliefs, are NOT inerrant unless one's source of interpretation is infallible."

I agree with this, and I believe this source is the Holy Spirit which speaks in and to every Christian.

But, about this:

"The Word of God, written or spoken, is inerrant in content; but that content, like any written text, cannot be accessed except through the process of interpretation."

How can you say that "scriptures are that part of the Word of God which were commited to writing" and "is inerrant in content", then have it contain errors whether historical or doctrinal in it.

in·er·rant - incapable of making a mistake

You wrote on another thread: "Incidental inaccuracies on matters of historical trivia, scientific issues, etc. may be present, but are totally irrelevant to the message God intended to convey."

You contradict yourself. Something can not be inerrant, yet still contain errors of any kind.

"Yes, the Word of God, including but not limited to those portions which were eventually written down and included in the canon of scripture, is inspired by the Holy Spirit."

So, how do you believe that the Holy Spirit which you believe keeps the Catholic Church infallible, allowed the Scripture [the Word of God or at least part of it] to be fallible [in err]?

Let me know you guys?

-- Tim, the Baptist (tlw97@cox.net), January 11, 2003.



Tim:
The honest answer you have requested:

"All inerrant and living in the Catholic Church."
So, you believe that Scripture is inerrant? I'm not talking about interpretation, but what is written itself.''

I AM talking about interpretation, Tim; since misinterpretation is rife in the Christian communities outside the Catholic Church. (I'm not making this up!)

The Word standing alone must necessarily BE inerrant; because God can neither deceive nor be deceived. He makes no errors.

Even so; as Saint Peter clearly says; there is content in the Word which is not easy to understand. The Word of God isn't to blame; human wisdom is. That's why Peter warns against any private interpretation of those sections.

We all know that the larger part of the bible is narrative; people, places, and events. But DOCTRINE is not so plainly apparent. WHO teaches the same doctrine taught from the beginning by Christ's apostles?

Only the Catholic Church; and that fact bears out perfectly the Holy Spirit's protection from error. Outside this church all is incoherent; without a unified faith. In the church is faith as strong as the first faith of the apostles; undisturbed or corrupted for 2,000 years. No human error!

Exactly why Peter warned us; not to trust human intelligence for the meaning of that truth. Because the truth is there in the Word of God. You just need all the Holy Spirit's gifts to see it without human fallibility.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 11, 2003.


I said: "Therefore, one's interpretation of the Word of God, and one's resultant beliefs, are NOT inerrant unless one's source of interpretation is infallible."

You replied: "I agree with this, and I believe this source is the Holy Spirit which speaks in and to every Christian".

Tim,

Old habits die hard I guess. Do you live in the real world? Or in some fictional world created in your own mind? How can you say with a straight face that infallible interpretation will be given by the Holy Spirit to every individual Christian, when that very approach has caused nothing but 450 years of error, dissention, fragmentation, and doctrinal chaos?? How can you simply look past this very real, very observable situation, and still speak in favor of the manmade system which caused it and continues to cause it?? I guess thiry thousand conflicting, contradicting, competing manmade denominations cabn't be wrong! They all have infallible interpretation given by the Holy Spirit? I live in the real world Tim, and this kind of ungodly situation cannot be the work of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit does not contradict Himself. He does not lead different Christian groups into conflicting beliefs. He speaks only the truth - constant, unchanging, infallible, just like the doctrines of the Holy Catholic Church. Jesus said "by their fruits shall ye know them". The fruits of Catholicism are exactly what Jesus described for his Church - unity of belief and worship. The fruits of your manmade tradition are exactly the opposite of Christ's stated will for His Church - disunity and division. Doesn't this matter to you?

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 11, 2003.


Dear Tim the Baptist:

Please read closely my post right above. You'll see it answers your objection to Paul's last reply. You can see there why the bible is inerrant; but important facts can contradict the Bible; and only through the Church's authority (thr Holy Spirit) will a thinking person be able to reconcile the truth with empiric evidence against the Word of God. --The Word of God does not lose credibility if the Church interprets. If men interpret, a thousand objections to the Word of God can arise.

You may have met stubborn atheists yourself, who argue against God's written Word. They fall back on ''scientific'' evidence. On spurious arguments of all kinds. This kind of atheistic rebuttal and disrespect for the Holy Scriptures has never deterred the Catholic Church from upholding ALL the truth. Because the Holy Spirit interprets the Word of God in our Church, not men.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 11, 2003.


Dear Paul:
You asked Tim the right questions; and he'll try to answer. ''. . . real, very observable situation, and [Tim will] still speak in favor of the manmade system which caused it and continues to cause it?? ---I guess thiry thousand conflicting, contradicting, competing manmade denominations cabn't be wrong! They all have infallible interpretation given by the Holy Spirit?''

My guess is, tim will simply tell us, OH! None of the other ''Bible Christians'' is given the gift of discerning scripture or truth the way I am; nor is the Catholic Church!''

That kind of hubris is what enlightens our friend Tim's bible scholarship, Paul. Am I right, Tim the baptisit?

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 11, 2003.


Eugene,

You wanted a warning, here is one. Your first posts were great, but later you start with:

"Old habits die hard I guess. Do you live in the real world? Or in some fictional world created in your own mind?"

"That kind of hubris is what enlightens our friend Tim's bible scholarship, Paul. Am I right, Tim the baptisit? "

Your posts would not suffer at all from not including making your points "personal". Further activity of this type will be deleted, and I will not be copying off individual posts to discuss each deletion with each poster.

Moderator

-- Moderator ("Catholic_moderator@hotmail.com"), January 11, 2003.



Eugene,

"The Word standing alone must necessarily BE inerrant; because God can neither deceive nor be deceived. He makes no errors."

I am still confused by your answer, so please answer yes or no: Is Scripture [ie. the Bible] inerrant?

"WHO teaches the same doctrine taught from the beginning by Christ's apostles? Only the Catholic Church"

I disagree, because some of the things that the Catholic Church teaches is not taught anywhere in Scripture, but is claimed to be handed down in tradition.

"The Word of God does not lose credibility if the Church interprets. If men interpret, a thousand objections to the Word of God can arise."

The Catholic Church is made of men, so please explain to me what you mean by "the Church" - what or who is it made of and how and who does the Holy Spirit communicate with it? If everyone left the Catholic Church and became Protestant, would the Catholic Church still be "the Church", how and why?

continue...

-- Tim, the Baptist (tlw97@cox.net), January 11, 2003.


Paul,

"How can you say with a straight face that infallible interpretation will be given by the Holy Spirit to every individual Christian, when that very approach has caused nothing but 450 years of error, dissention, fragmentation, and doctrinal chaos??"

Okay, I don't think you are understanding what I am trying to say. I believe that the Holy Spirit speaks to every Christian the Truth, but it is the Christian who errs when they do not accept it over their own ideas. That is why there is so much "dissention, fragmentation, and doctrinal chaos". It isn't the fault of the Holy Spirit, because he is infallible and inerrant, but when man drifts from what the Spirit teaches, man errs from the faith. I think you even agree with that? Just because someone claims it is of God, does not make it so, that is why we have Scripture to check it out.

Therefore, what I am talking about is not "the manmade system", but the system of the Holy Spirit from God which works in every Christian to lead them to the Truth. Again, we err when we do not listen to the Holy Spirit not because we do not listen to the Catholic Church.

And please don't avoid the questions regarding Scripture, Paul. This is important for me to understand how you can say that the Scripture is inerrant, yet contains errors?

-------

And guys, the wording you use toward me doesn't really bother me, but the Moderator has spoken. Please try to listen, so these posts don't get deleted like some of the others. It makes it hard to get talking and then for the post to disappear.

-------

Thanks and God Bless!

-- Tim, the Baptist (tlw97@cox.net), January 11, 2003.


Moderator,
The mention of hubris directly relates to a man's obstinate refusal to realise anything except his own logic. If you see otherwise, I'll withdraw that word. But--

If the word is too infalmmatory, by all means; delete THAT WORD. --Not a day's worth of posts. I mean, unless the thread has too many other flaws by your criteria; and the process would require much lost time. But you single out ONE WORD--

And for that single word, you're willing to waste a day's participation in good faith?

You are simply hunting for excuses to retaliate for a criticism you fully deserved, Sir. I think that's self-evident.
I am not in school; my posts do not require your PASSING GRADES, thank you.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 11, 2003.


Tim,
Why do you maintain: ''. . . but it is the Christian who errs when they do not accept it over their ideas''. there's dissention, fragmentation, and doctrinal chaos. It isn't the fault of the Holy Spirit, because he is infallible and inerrant, but ***when man drifts from what the Spirit teaches***, man errs from the faith;''

Just the point we're making. Man alone can stray. The Church has been blessed by Christ; and afforded the eternal presence of the Holy Spirit. No single man can claim he learns from the Holy Spirit. Not even Catholics; It is the Catholic Church;

Her Tradition and Scriptures plus the testimony of many saints, early Fathers, our Pope and Magisterium; not private interpretations which the Holy Spirit protects from error.

What is the entire body of all you have preached here, but ''your own ideas''?

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 11, 2003.


Tim..what do you consider was the "Word of God" for the early Christians before written scripture? This is an important question. From the time of when the apostles began to preach until the scriptures were commited to writing..what exactly do you point to as the "word" since there was no written bible for people to reference for themselves????? And taking it a step farther, as we did in another thread awhile back, since the vast majority of the world's people had no access to the written word, and indeed, if they did, could not read anyway, until sometime after the Middle Ages, what would you point to as the "word" for all of those centuries???????

-- lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), January 11, 2003.


I often wonder how long it took to actually write the Bible, put it all together, have it published, distributed throughout the world?

When was the actual 'physical' Bible published for printing? How many Bibles were made available for publication?

I often wonder how long it took just to write one page of the Bible, with limited supplies of paper, pen, and ink....how many pages were tossed because of errors...

Amazing how far we have come. Now we push a button, delete our errors, start over and have a whole new page in seconds....

I would love to know all the details - the whole physical process...where were the written pages stored until it was completed..was there an editor...were any words changed (as the Bible was God-inspired?) Did the authors agree on every word? When you actually think about it, it is really amazing that a book written thousands of years ago is still read today.

I wonder what the authors struggled with, if there were any struggles, or did the words come easy to them because they were God- inspired? Who actually put the Old Testament and the New Testament together in one book? How many translations are there? Etc., etc...etc....

MaryLu

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), January 12, 2003.


I often wonder how long it took to actually write the Bible, put it all together, have it published, distributed throughout the world?

When was the actual 'physical' Bible published for printing? How many Bibles were made available for publication? I often wonder how long it took just to write one page of the Bible, with limited supplies of paper, pen, and ink....how many pages were tossed because of errors...

Amazing how far we have come. Now we push a button, delete our errors, start over and have a whole new page in seconds....

I would love to know all the details - the whole physical process...where were the written pages stored until it was completed..was there an editor...were any words changed (as the Bible was God-inspired?) Did the authors agree on every word? When you actually think about it, it is really amazing that a book written thousands of years ago is still read today.

I wonder what the authors struggled with, if there were any struggles, or did the words come easy to them because they were God- inspired? Who actually put the Old Testament and the New Testament together in one book? How many translations are there? Etc., etc...etc....

MaryLu

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), January 12, 2003.


Eugene,

"No single man can claim he learns from the Holy Spirit."

Ro 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

Ro 8:15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.

Ro 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

Ro 8:17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

Just because you have a group of individuals that agree - 10, 100, or even 1000 - doesn't make it gospel. Look at all the people that rose up against Jesus. Look at the Jim Jones group. What about Heaven's Gate? What about Waco?

Scripture is a great tool, Eugene. God Bless!

-- Tim, the Baptist (tlw97@cox.net), January 12, 2003.


lesley,

"what do you consider was the "Word of God" for the early Christians before written scripture?"

Why does it matter what was consider the "Word of God" before Scripture? Scripture is clearly what God has given us for the Church age - the age we are living in since the death of the apostles and the writing of Scripture.

If you remember, the prophets and such were spoken to audibly in the Old Testament and preached and taught the people. Then we have the written law of Moses.

Oral tradition is no longer needed because we have the Scriptures at our finger tips. There is no new revelations of God. It is all contained in the Scripture or Christ would have used more than "it is written" in being tempted by Satan.

Before Christ came, man was given things audibly, but when Christ came he gave us the New Testament and promised that the Holy Spirit would remind the writers of it of every single point to make sure it was infallible and inerrant.

Now we have the Holy Spirit to guide and lead us into all truth, if we pray, read the Scripture, and obey the Spirit of God. The same Spirit that was with the writers.

2ti 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

2ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

2ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

There is no mention of tradition, but it is clear that Scripture does what? "That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."

And the Word of God [Scripture] remains Scripture if one person has it or everyone has it. There are people today that probably have never seen a Bible in their life, but it still remains the Word of God.

And if I am not mistaken, the Catholic Church had the Scriptures put into Latin, which was not a common language. That would be like having the Scriptures in only Latin today. What good would that do? They would have to believe what ever you say, because they couldn't read it themselves to test it.

God Bless!

-- Tim, the Baptist (tlw97@cox.net), January 12, 2003.


Tim,
You would make more headway here if you had MORE than a batch of biblical quotes to support your ideas. You count on verses from here and there which were written to Catholic Christians by a Catholic saint; Saint Paul.

The Bible is a good source of proof to back up the Church, but not to support heretical Christians. In the interval since 1500 and the present, a notion was accepted by the ''reformers'' that the Bible should be adored for itself. It shouldn't-- because private interpretation thereby receives your worship, when you fall into bibliolatry. The false premise that only scripture is given us for serving God faithfully is called Sola Scriptura. A premise that can't be proven from the scripture! Our Lord never wrote a Bible-- and He never cautioned believers to stay away from anything not mentioned in the Bible (afterwards.) This strange FEAR that anything which isn't contained in the BOOK is spurious or unchristian is a direct result of ''Bible idolatry''.

It may not seem so to you, but all Catholics read and love the Bible. But NOT for itself; for the truth inside of it; a guarantee of God's teachings.

Yet, as any fool can see, the truth isn't always apparent to men. They READ and fail to understand. What good is reading it, then?

You think it's all up to you and the Holy Spirit. But it's not; it's the Church and the Holy Spirit; giving us guaranteed Word of God; whether from the Bible, or Tradition, or the Popes.

Furthermore, Catholics adore ONLY GOD. Not the Bible. There is no NEED to worship the Bible, Tim. Millions of illiterates didn't read it ONCE, & have been saved.

And, lastly: Latin was for more than a thousand years the language of all countries of the western world. Latin was the language of Pontius Pilate, of Saint Augustine, of all races and countries, educated people or uneducated, and until very late in the 1st millennium. just about all who could read.

Latin has been good for the Holy Bible and we shouldn't be surprised.
The Holy Spirit knew what He was doing! Lol!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 12, 2003.


---

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 12, 2003.

Eugene,

I will try to get to your posts tomorrow.

But, I wanted to comment to the individual that thinks it is funny or heroic to step into a Christian discussion, and spit out this kind of garbage.

What a weak mind. I am going to pray that the Holy Spirit will work on you to where you will not be able to rest till you come to terms with yourself and come to Jesus Christ for his saving grace.

May God help your soul!

-- Tim, the Baptist (tlw97@cox.net), January 12, 2003.


Tim..it is important because scripture, meaning New Testament, was not written until many, many years after Christ. And so, for those Christians who were alive then, and for centuries after that, until the bible was first printed, what did the common man have at hand to call the "word"? If, as you say, the Holy Spirit works in each man to reveal truth in WRITTEN scripture, if there were no written scripture available to the common man for those centuries, then how could the "word" be revealed? If your stance is to be credible, what you are saying is that UNTIL the bible was printed and available to each person to be read and interpreted by each person, the Holy Spirit could not work in them...because it is ONLY through the written scriptures that the TRUTH of God is revealed. And so, I'll ask you again, what do you consider was the "word of God" prior to the bible? And I am not talking about the Old Testament. but AFTER Christ.

-- lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), January 12, 2003.

Eugene,

"The Bible is a good source of proof to back up the Church, but not to support heretical Christians."

The Scripture supports the Truth - not the Catholic Church nor the Protestant - but the Truth. It is us who must conform to it.

"The false premise that only scripture is given us for serving God faithfully is called Sola Scriptura. A premise that can't be proven from the scripture!"

Then tell me what these verses mean? Please, I need to know:

2ti 3:16-17 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Where is tradition or anything else but Scripture? Show me where tradition is able to do this to a person.

"Our Lord never wrote a Bible-- and He never cautioned believers to stay away from anything not mentioned in the Bible (afterwards.)"

Did he preach tradition was what we were to follow? That is a pointless case, Eugene. He also didn't sprinkle babies, listen to confession, sing in church, etc. But he did worn against tradition.

"It may not seem so to you, but all Catholics read and love the Bible." - I don't doubt many do.

"They READ and fail to understand. What good is reading it, then?" - it could be your opinion that they "fail to understand" because they simply disagree with you are the Catholic Church. There is where the problem is. Not that someone can't read the Word of God and get understanding, but that they must get the same idea as the Catholic Church or they are wrong. So then I ask, Why read it? Just accept the Catholic teaching and forget reading the Bible for yourself - it is a waste of time.

continue...

-- Tim, the Baptist (tlw97@cox.net), January 13, 2003.


"You think it's all up to you and the Holy Spirit. But it's not; it's the Church and the Holy Spirit; giving us guaranteed Word of God; whether from the Bible, or Tradition, or the Popes."

Don't you see what you are saying? You are throwing out the fact that Christ and the Holy Spirit works in the Christian to help them understand, because the Christian is a memeber of Christ - therefore a memeber of the Church. But you are claiming that it takes Scripture, tradition, Popes, and the Holy Spirit to make man understand. You are adding man into the equation to produce understanding. Where was a Pope and tradition at the time of Noah? There was only the Word of God.

"Furthermore, Catholics adore ONLY GOD." - let's don't go there Eugene. That could cause a very heated debate indeed and you know it.

"Latin has been good for the Holy Bible and we shouldn't be surprised." - it was only allowed to be taught and read in Latin Eugene, that is why is was in Latin. Except for the persecuted English Bible writers and readers.

continue...

-- Tim, the Baptist (tlw97@cox.net), January 13, 2003.


Lesley,

"If, as you say, the Holy Spirit works in each man to reveal truth in WRITTEN scripture, if there were no written scripture available to the common man for those centuries, then how could the "word" be revealed?"

There was the Old Testament and also writings I am sure that the churches had to read and preach from. That doesn't mean every individual had to have their own copy of the entire Old and New Testament.

"If your stance is to be credible, what you are saying is that UNTIL the bible was printed and available to each person to be read and interpreted by each person, the Holy Spirit could not work in them."

That is not what I am saying at all. And when the Holy Spirit come? Not till after Christ went to Heaven. The Holy Spirit uses Scripture read AND preached to work in the heart and lives of Christians and the unsaved to bring them to salvation. Tradition does not cut it.

Ro 10:17-18 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.

What do you mean "I am not talking about the Old Testament"? Is that not Scripture?

God Bless!

-- Tim, the Baptist (tlw97@cox.net), January 13, 2003.


The early Christians got their teaching from the Old Testament?? Then how did they manage to be Christians? If the Old Testament provided what early Christians needed to grow in their Christian faith, then why did Jesus bother to give His teachings to the Apostles? Or - perhaps it was those teachings, the teachings of Jesus, preached and interpreted by the Church He founded, which enabled people to know the truth of Jesus Christ - both before the Church wrote them down, and afterwards. Before the Church bound them into a book, and afterwards. Remember, the Bible came to us through the Church, not the Church through the Bible.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 13, 2003.

OK Tim, so you agree that the PREACHING of the gospels before they were written down was the "Word of God"..yes? (By the way, the reason I excluded the Old Testament from this discussion is because we are speaking about scripture that came AFTER Christ..right? After all, when the word "scripture" is referred to anywhere in the New Testament, it is always referring to the OLD, because there was no "new" yet...)..anyway, so the oral teaching and preaching of the WORD of God from the first time the apostles were filled with the Holy Spirit and went among men, up until they died is considered by you , Tim, to be the true WORD of God..yes? And of course Paul's teaching and preaching to the various people would be the "WORD" of God as well, right? Since it's some of his own letters which make up part of the New Testament itself..right? So then, WHATEVER the Apostles and Paul and those other men that THEY appointed as "preachers" and teachers and assistants, etc. taught to the people would be the "WORD" of God..right? Or surely, the Apostles would have corrected them and reproved them..right? Let me stop here and see if we are in agreement so far.

-- lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), January 13, 2003.

Paul,

"The early Christians got their teaching from the Old Testament?? Then how did they manage to be Christians?"

Ro 15:4 For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.

"If the Old Testament provided what early Christians needed to grow in their Christian faith, then why did Jesus bother to give His teachings to the Apostles?"

Heb 9:15-16 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.

"the teachings of Jesus, preached and interpreted by the Church He founded, which enabled people to know the truth of Jesus Christ"

The Scripture was hand written from the teachings of Christ with the power of the infallible, inerrant Holy Spirit into the heart and mind of the fallible, errant men - to keep the Scripture pure and accurrate without error to stand the test of time with Authority - to teach and save the Church of Christ [individual Christians], and not to be controlled by them.

God Bless!

-- Tim, the Baptist (tlw97@cox.net), January 14, 2003.


lesley,

"so you agree that the PREACHING of the gospels before they were written down was the "Word of God"..yes?" - Yes.

"so the oral teaching and preaching of the WORD of God from the first time the apostles were filled with the Holy Spirit and went among men, up until they died is considered by you , Tim, to be the true WORD of God..yes?" - Yes. But the same oral preaching was then written down for the purpose of letting the Christians know that what a preacher preached was true or not. Oral preaching and/or tradition can be changed as one desires, if there is no written word to check it with. I could tell you anything, but without written facts to prove it - why would you believe me? Just because I claim to be a man of God? I doubt it. A claim is a claim - not necessarily a fact.

"Paul's teaching and preaching to the various people would be the "WORD" of God as well, right?" - Yes.

continue...

-- Tim, the Baptist (tlw97@cox.net), January 14, 2003.


"So then, WHATEVER the Apostles and Paul and those other men that THEY appointed as "preachers" and teachers and assistants, etc. taught to the people would be the "WORD" of God..right? Or surely, the Apostles would have corrected them and reproved them..right?" - Yes. But again we see that is why the Word of God was written, so everyone would know the truth and no if someone was preaching lies. If you recall, at the very same time Scripture was being written, people were trying to corrupt it.

2co 2:17 For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.

So, they wrote the Scripture to keep out lies.

2co 11:4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

Ga 1:7-9 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

God Bless!

-- Tim, the Baptist (tlw97@cox.net), January 14, 2003.


Exactly Tim...Let him who PREACHES...note it doesn't say "write down"..even the scripture says "PREACHES"..so there were the men who actually knew Jesus, preaching His Gospel..and then along came Paul, and he preached the Gospel of Jesus too..and if you'll note in a few of Paul's letters, he says clearly that he sends his helpers to the various people to preach to them as well..one can only assume that these men, appointed by Paul, approved by Paul, PREACHED the gospel that Paul approved. And before each of the Apostles died, and before Paul died, the WRITTEN scriptures of what would be the New testament were not completed...the WORD, surely did not die with them...so what happened? Did everyone stop preaching to the people??? No. Men, appointed by Peter and Paul continued to PREACH the WORD..AND part of that WORD, was also oral tradition Tim. When the Oral tradition of the Catholic Church began, there were many folks still around who had HEARD with their own ears the preaching of the apostles as well as Paul.IF these oral traditions were in contradiction to what they had heard from these holy men, why was there not a hue and cry? On the contrary, when other folks popped up here and there teaching things which were NOT in step with what the apostles preached, letters flew back and forth all over the place among people, condeming the practices. The letters supporting both oral tradition and the evidence of false preaching of those days are all available for you to read. You say the Catholic Church "claims" to have this documentation of oral tradition..the inuendo is that it is somehow made up out of thin air.......continued below...

-- lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), January 15, 2003.

arghh..had already typed the rest and it wouldn't go through! Why would the church, being the only Christian church around begin falsifying letters around 50AD or so,with the idea of deceiving people in the 16th century and beyond? As far as writing the NT in Latin..ALL educated people spoke and read either Latin or Greek for centuries. If you go to a large metropolitan library and ask to see a textbook from the 16th century, you'll be reading Latin or Greek. Art forms, such as poetry, were just beginning to emerge from Europe in other languages about that time. Whoever told you that the church wrore scriptures in Latin to hide them from the people was woefully ignorant of European cultural history.....continued..

-- lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), January 15, 2003.

Jesus Himself gave the church oral tradition + the gospel...undeniably..He also gave the church the authority to assemble and to CHOOSE, under the guidance of the HOLY SPIRIT what would and would NOT be the BIBLE. How do we know that? Because they did. Don't you agree that God wouldn't have done this if the church weren't chosen by Him???? Do you think He chose wrong? Why didn't God wait until better men came along, or why didn't the Holy Spirit work in those men to toss out the tradition part????? If the scriptures were all that God wanted men to have as the 100% WORD, don't you think He would have arranged that to begin with Tim? Second guessing God Almighty is what creates tons of sects which don't last 2000 years.

-- lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), January 15, 2003.

"Therefore, what I am talking about is not "the manmade system", but the system of the Holy Spirit from God which works in every Christian to lead them to the Truth. Again, we err when we do not listen to the Holy Spirit not because we do not listen to the Catholic Church."

So, Tim, don't you think it would be kind of dumb to "leave it up to us" so to speak? I mean, if the Holy Spirit is to work through us, but we might not fully accept His guidance, then how on earth can the True Gospel be spread. If we are to be taught by others as we grow, then we must take their word for it - but then again, maybe they aren't right? And maybe I'm not right...? Well, gosh darn it, who's right. I can't trust myself to be right, because I'm errant. And I can't trust others to hold the Truth! I can trust the Holy Spirit, but I can't trust anyone He speaks to because they could be in error. How in the world do we find the honest to goodness Truth and know for sure that it is True!? Moreover, how can your Pastor teach you? Are you sure that he has fully accepted the guidance of the Holy Spirit? Because if he hasn't, then he is leading a bunch of people into the wrong road! No one should be brave enough to teach, because on the chance that we might have messed up what the Spirit was trying to say to us, wouldn't we be accountable for teaching others a mistake? Would the Spirit be so naive as to guide us alone (individually) in hopes that we might get the Truth. Or would the Spirit be more inclined to set up a system by which the Earth is guaranteed the Truth?

Just some thoughts.

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), January 15, 2003.


Tim, I am not sure if this question of yours was ever answered in this thread.

Then tell me what these verses mean? Please, I need to know: 2ti 3:16-17 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

These verses mean exactly what they say. That ALL scripture is profitable. But please note that it does not say ONLY scripture is profitable.

God Bless.

-- Glenn (glenn@nospam.com), January 15, 2003.

Glenn, read the last part : "That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. "

If the scripture may perfect us and thoroughly furnish us unto all good works, why the need for other teachings ?

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), January 15, 2003.


Oliver,

Because the men he was speaking to were already Apostles, deeply rooted in the teachings of Christ through their experience within the Body of Christ. Then, and only then did Jesus tell them that their formation in the faith could be completed and made perfect by studying the Old Testament. That would put the last few pieces in place, by revealing the prophecies concerning what they had already learned.

You ask why we need teachings other than the scriptures, if the scriptures furnish everything we need. But you overstate the case. The real question, if we follow your logic, is "why do we need the teachings of Christ, if the Old Testament includes all that is needed to "perfect us and thoroughly furnish us unto all good works". Obviously that is not the case; and since the Old Testament was the only scripture that existed at the time, Christ could not have told them that scripture was all they needed.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 15, 2003.


Paul,

That's a very good point.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 15, 2003.


" 2ti 3:16-17 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."

To add to what Paul stated... It is clear to me that it is Scripture that is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. The second part of the passage refers not to Scripture, but the the last part of the first sentence. That is, the man of God "may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works" not by Scripture, rather by doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness, which may or may not be accompanied by the Scripture.

See what I mean? Scripture is profitable and useful for the doctrine, correction, instruction, etc. It is the doctrine, correction, instruction, etc. that makes the man perfect - but that dosn't necessitate the use of Scripture.

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), January 15, 2003.


lesley,

"When the Oral tradition of the Catholic Church began, there were many folks still around who had HEARD with their own ears the preaching of the apostles as well as Paul.IF these oral traditions were in contradiction to what they had heard from these holy men, why was there not a hue and cry?"

Maybe that is why there was an East and West Catholic group, which disagreed. There is also history accounts of church fathers that disagreed, but as it is today, the ones with more power and larger congregations were heard over the rest.

Even if the Catholic church could honestly claim that they continue to hold to the oral tradition of the Apostles, why do they claim so much oral tradition which is no where mentioned or even done in Scripture? The Scripture was written so that the Christians would be able to test the preaching against something that is inerrantly true. Where a preacher, pope, and priest can err - the Scripture does and can not.

--

"ALL educated people spoke and read either Latin or Greek for centuries."

But the common people did not. Therefore a Latin bible did them no good. There were held to believe whatever the Catholic Church said, because they could not check it with anything.

continue...

-- Tim, the Baptist (tlw97@cox.net), January 15, 2003.


lesley,

"Jesus Himself gave the church oral tradition + the gospel...undeniably.."

What oral tradition did Christ give? I remember him always say, "It is written..."

--

"He also gave the church the authority to assemble and to CHOOSE, under the guidance of the HOLY SPIRIT what would and would NOT be the BIBLE."

Again, this is not found in Scripture, but a belief to uphold the Catholic teachings. Also, let it be noted that the Church of Christ is individual Christians, not the Roman Catholi Church. There are surely Christian in the Church of Christ which belong to the Roman Catholic Church, but the two are not the same - but different. To be a member of the Roman Catholic Church, is the same as me being a member of my church. To be a member of the Church of Christ [not the donomination] is to be a Christian, washed in the blood of Jesus Christ, and in the body of Christ, and sealed by the Holy Spirit.

God Bless!

-- Tim, the Baptist (tlw97@cox.net), January 15, 2003.


Jake,

"I mean, if the Holy Spirit is to work through us, but we might not fully accept His guidance, then how on earth can the True Gospel be spread."

By what I have been preaching since I became a Christian. By the Holy Scripture and the work of the Holy Spirit!

--

This is where I find the fault in the Catholic doctrine. You want to believe that the Holy Spirit can't work in individuals, because individuals may not listen.

Yet,

You believe the Holy Spirit works in the Catholic Church, which is made of these same individuals, but they vote on what to believe and the majority wins - and this is the work of the Holy Spirit?

Hmmm.... What is the difference?

Did Christ promise the Church would be infallible in everyway, in everyone?

Eph 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; Eph 4:12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Eph 4:13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

God Bless!

-- Tim, the Baptist (tlw97@cox.net), January 15, 2003.


Thanks Oliver, good point...

Also a good point to Paul...

--

But check out this Paul,

T2ti 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures [which you yourself claim is Old Testament], which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

--

Sorry, Jake, you have chewed up those verses... 2 Timothy 3:16, 17

[1] All scripture is given by inspiration of God

[2] is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

********* What [is]? Scripture

[3] That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

********* How? By the doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction of what? Scripture Let's break it down:

Where in these verses do you find ""may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works" not by Scripture, rather by doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness, which may or may not be accompanied by the Scripture."

You have simply added in the words to fit your belief, Jake.

1co 4:6 And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.

Some wish to put oral tradition "above that which is written".

God Bless!

-- Tim, the Baptist (tlw97@cox.net), January 15, 2003.


“The Scripture was written so that the Christians would be able to test the preaching against something that is inerrantly true.”

Ehem, actually, Scripture was written either to document events (like in the OT), or mainly as letters (not to the entire world) to certain Churches. The Scriptures were LATER compiled as documentation as to what the Apostles taught in conjunction with what they PREACHED orally.

“Did Christ promise the Church would be infallible in everyway, in everyone?”

No, only in the Successors of the Apostles, and only on faith and morals.

And, Tim, why is my interpretation “chewed up”, and yours not. Is it that clear? If it was so clear, wouldn’t we come up with the same interpretation? Who gave you authority over me? Are you being lead by the “spriti”, cause I could swear I was when I wrote that… Hmmm… Familiar scenario, eh?

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), January 15, 2003.


I apologize Jake,

I shouldn't have used the words "chewed up", I should have just said "incorrect".

I have to admit Jake, that I merely broke the verses down into the basic English of today to show exactly what is was showing.

I didn't try to interpret anything, but just show it exactly as it reads.

God Bless and sorry for my choice of words!

-- Tim, the Baptist (tlw97@cox.net), January 15, 2003.


"I have to admit Jake, that I merely broke the verses down into the basic English of today to show exactly what is was showing.

I didn't try to interpret anything, but just show it exactly as it reads."

That’s just silly, Tim. You didn’t “try” to interpret anything. When anyone reads something, breaks it down, or whatever to try and prove what it says – it still is an INTERPRETATION. Unless you can have St. Paul to come down here and share his true intention – which in fact is guarded in the very same Church he taught in, then anything else is an interpretation.

Moreover, Tim, surly even you know that when a paragraph structure is broken down to be analyzed it may (or may not) lose it's actual intended meaning. Furthermore, you broke the English translation down to show how it EXACTLY reads, however, I'm sure you are aware of the fact that it originally was not written in English. It would be interesting to see what it looks like broken down in Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), January 16, 2003.


Here it is again.

" 2ti 3:16-17 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."

Now how can you tell me that we can somehow cut out doctrine…reproof… correction…instruction to come up with your idea: “All Scripture…is profitable…that the man of God may be perfect…”

No, no, no. Scripture is profitable, that is beneficial (not the absolute and sole source of info – unless you can show me in the English, or any other, dictionary that profitable = only) for reproof, correction, INSTRUCTION: and it is the reproof, correction, and instruction that make the man of God perfect. Scripture doesn’t make one perfect! Reproof, correction and instruction do! Scripture, therefore is a TOOL that is beneficial for instruction – just like a math book is beneficial for teaching math. Yet, the math book is far from containing all that must be said in order to teach one math. And beyond that, the Scriptures within the Bible were never intended by those who were inspired to write to be used as a text book on faith. They by themselves were documented accounts, letters, and SHORT historical accounts. You cannot deny that more could be said about Jesus then what is written. Paul himself didn’t want to write. He’d have preferred to teach them face to face, but since he was abroad that was impossible. John stated that if everything that Jesus did was written the entire world wouldn’t be able to contain the books!

Tim, if you love Jesus, don’t you want to know what else He did!? The Catholic Church still has that!

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), January 16, 2003.


Tim..How do you know for CERTAIN that a person even existed named Paul who wrote letters to anyone in ancient times? How do you know for CERTAIN that Jesus Christ said this or that? Was it historians who compiled all of the documents and data? Can we all go to some huge museum somewhere and view Roman newspapers with editorials and interviews of all the key players? It was the Catholic Church that preserved ALL of the early letters, from ALL of the early church fathers..painstakingly copied by hand when the parchments began to crumble to dust..over and over..Now ask yourself THIS...since the church had 100% control over what went into the bible to begin with..WHY didn't they FAKE letters from PAUL about "tradition"???? Why didn't they simply DO THAT?..continued...

-- lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), January 17, 2003.

continued....their PURPOSE in compiling the Gospels of Paul,and Mark and Luke, and John, and Matthew, as well as reviewing and selecting OT books for inclusion into "Scripture" was NOT to select the literal "only" path to Salvation by the written WORD for man to follow, but to select those pieces of written communication which they felt were INSPIRED by God..to be used by men..to ASSIST men in their path to Salvation. To avoid the ERROR of men in self- interpretation, the church interprets for us. A good example is when Jesus says DIVORCE and re-marriage is FORBIDDEN, the church says it is FORBIDDEN..end of conversation. In a valid marriage, there is NO such thing as divorce and re-marriage. The individual members of the church do not interpret this scripture for themselves and conduct their lives around it, or they are banned from the sacraments because they are in sin. When people "interpret" scripture for themselves, you have schism, sects, and fragmentation..look around you.

-- lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), January 17, 2003.

Well Jake, I have finally found time to sit down back at the forum,

"It would be interesting to see what it looks like broken down in Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic." [2 Timothy 3:16, 17]

I will be using the following book: "The Interlinear KJV Parallel New Testament in Greek and English" - By George Berry

--

2 Timothy 3:16, 17

[16] Every scripture [is] God-inspired and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for correction, for discipline which [is] in righteousness; [17] that complete may be the man of God, to every good work fully fitted.

--

Let's look at it like this:

[1] All scripture is - given by inspiration of God [2] All scripture is - profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: [3] All scripture is given and profitable - That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

continue...

-- Tim, the Baptist (tlw97@cox.net), January 21, 2003.


Jake,

"the Scriptures within the Bible were never intended by those who were inspired to write to be used as a text book on faith."

So, what are the Scripture for then Jake? If it were not for the Scripture, where would the Catholic Church get it's doctrine?

-----

"Paul himself didn’t want to write. He’d have preferred to teach them face to face, but since he was abroad that was impossible."

Of course, Paul would have rather preached the gospel instead of write it. But that was not the will of God, now was it? That doesn't prove anything.

-----

" John stated that if everything that Jesus did was written the entire world wouldn’t be able to contain the books!"

That is why the Holy Spirit made sure that what was important and necessary for the "doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness" was contain in the Scriptures for all the read.

continue...

-- Tim, the Baptist (tlw97@cox.net), January 21, 2003.


Jake,

"Tim, if you love Jesus, don’t you want to know what else He did!? The Catholic Church still has that!"

That's it Jake, you can't have it, because it wasn't written down. And please don't tell me it has been pasted down by oral tradition. If that were the so, the following beliefs would have appeared at the same time, instead of years apart from each other.

593 - Belief in Purgatory

600 - Prayer to Mary and the saints

709 - The practice of kissing the pope's foot

995 - The canonization of dead saints

1079 - Celibacy of the priesthood

1090 - Praying the rosary

1215 - Transubstantiation and confessing sins to a priest

1439 - Belief in the seven sacraments

------------

God Bless!

-- Tim, the Baptist (tlw97@cox.net), January 21, 2003.


lesley,

"Now ask yourself THIS...since the church had 100% control over what went into the bible to begin with"

They didn't. There were others than the Catholic Church which "choose" what was Scripture and what was not. Again, it was the power of the Holy Spirit which guided the men to the Scripture - minus the Apocrypha.

-----

"A good example is when Jesus says DIVORCE and re-marriage is FORBIDDEN, the church says it is FORBIDDEN..end of conversation."

I don't want to bring up a new debate here lesley, but the Catholic Church allows this all of the time. It is just called something different. If I am wrong then tell me. I believe they use your words "In a valid marriage". I believe when a man knows [and you know what I mean] a woman, God considers them married.

-----

"When people "interpret" scripture for themselves, you have schism, sects, and fragmentation..look around you."

And when people can't, all you have in a dictator with blind sheep.

------------

God Bless!

-- Tim, the Baptist (tlw97@cox.net), January 21, 2003.


Tim, I don't have much time, but I saw this quote and wanted to respond.

"So, what are the Scripture for then Jake? If it were not for the Scripture, where would the Catholic Church get it's doctrine?"

Well, the Cathoic Church had BOTH Apostolic Tradition AND the Magisterium in collaboration with the Scriptures. Therefore, if there were NO Scripture, then the Catholic Church would do just fine.

On the other hand, if there were no Scripture, there would be NO protestant churches....

The Word of God is a living Word. It needs niether ink nor paper to keep it going.

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), January 21, 2003.


Ah, heck - it's only another comment...

"593 - Belief in Purgatory

600 - Prayer to Mary and the saints..."

Tim, I truly have no idea where you got these dates from, but your way off the mark.

If anything, my suspicion tells me that these in the very least are the dates that these "beliefs" were formally promulgated (that is officiallized as doctrine). But any Scholar, even most Protestants, know that:

Belief in Purgatory dates way before the Church began - even before Christ came!

Prayer to Mary and the saints. Well, the fact that there weren't many Saints in the early days (not that many Christians had died as of yet) tells us right away that this wouldn't be practice for early Christians.

Actually - your problem is that you can't see us praying to DEAD people. But intercession is very clear by Paul's continued request for prayers.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), January 21, 2003.


The practice of kissing the pope's foot. Tim, this is way off base. We're talking about doctrine. Is there a problem with kissing the Popes foot? Do you kiss your wives feet? Oooops!

The canonization of dead saints. Saints were recognized as early as the first ones died. Canonization is just the "formal" induction, so to speak.

Celibacy of the priesthood. Well, Christ, we presume, was celibate. As to with Paul, Peter, James, Luke, et al. Find me a Scripture that mentions Peter's wife AFTER he becomes an apostle. Let's talk about Non-celibacy. When did that begin? Besides for that, really there isn't a doctrinal reason for it. Celibacy simply frees up the priest to more fully serve God. Where's the beef with that? So, really celibacy has always been around.

Praying the rosary. This isn't concidered "Apostolic Tradition". So I fail to see your point. "Bless us oh Lord in these, thy Gifts..." probably wasn't prayed till around the 20th century, but who cares?

Transubstantiation began at the Last Supper, and doctrines about the True Presence can be read as early as the FIRST century! Look up the Church fathers, Tim.

Confessing sins to a priest has been around since the time of Moses, Tim. Even the Israelites had to confess their sins!

“Belief in the seven sacraments”

Okay, I don’t get this one. We just covered transubstantiation and confession, and baptism for sure came before, so if these beliefs came before 1439 then how do you get that the “belief” in the seven sacraments came in this year.

Tim, the Sacraments were instituted by Christ. They’ve always been a part of the Church.

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), January 21, 2003.


Hi, Tim - -

I'm no Scripture scholar but I'll give it a shot:

1. Baptism: Well, Our Lord Himself was baptized, remember? (That's an easy one, I think most of the Christian churches accept that.) And the Apostles went out baptizing, not only individuals but entire households (remember the jailer?). See: Mt 28:19-20, Acts 2:38

2. Holy Eucharist: This was instituted by Our Lord at the Last Supper. Lk 22:14-20.

3. Confirmation: This is when we receive the fullness of the Holy Spirit, usually done by laying on of hands and oil. Acts 2:1-4; 8:14- 17

4. Reconciliation (Confession): The priest represents Christ; we confess our sins to Christ through His representative on earth. Christ gave the Apostles the power to forgive sins in His name. Jn 20:19-23. Mt 5:23-24; 16:17-20

5. Sacrament of the Sick (Last Rites): This is when a sick person is blessed (and often healed). Mk 6:7-13; 16:17-18. Mt 10:8.

6. Holy Orders: 1 Tm 3:1; 2 Tm 1:6; HEb 5:1,3

7. Matrimony: the very first Sacrament, created by God Himself! Gn 1:27; 2:24; Mt 19:3-7.

Hope these will at least give you a start in understanding why we believe that the sacraments are Scripturally based, even if you don't agree. :-)

-- Christine L. :-) (christine_lehman@hotmail.com), January 23, 2003.


“So, if this were so, where would the Catholic Church get their information? How would they be held accountable? Like the apostles were, by people being able to check what they said with the written Scripture?”

The people never HAD to check what the Apostles said based on Scripture! The Apostles weren’t held accountable to Scripture, they had just been trained by Almighty God! The people knew this. Show me evidence of the Apostles being “checked” by Scripture, and I’ll agree. And don’t assume because the Apostles sometimes used Scripture, that it was out of necessity for the disciples to believe them. The disciples believed them because they knew Jesus sent them!

“2co 11:4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him. Ga 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. How would anybody know without Scripture?”

Ehem, Tim, the Apostles didn’t use Scripture here. They said, PREACHED, not written.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), January 23, 2003.


“Mt 23:31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. Lu 11:47 Woe unto you! for ye build the sepulchres of the prophets, and your fathers killed them.”

But, Tim, they weren’t in heaven as of yet. So the conditions aren’t the same.

“Jake, "Find me a Scripture that mentions Peter's wife AFTER he becomes an apostle." Do you believe Peter divorced or left his wife? That would be against Scripture. 1ti 5:8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.”

Surely there is a conflict (or maybe there's a missunderstanding), for the Apostles left “EVERYTHING” and followed Jesus. Furthermore, Jesus himself didn’t say divorce was bad! Jesus said divorcing and re-marrying was bad. Besides, that wasn’t my point. It very well could have been that Peter’s wife died. Or that she was understanding and WAS provided for. Provisions don’t necessarily mean that Peter had to have relations with her. My point wasn’t that Peter left her – though historically speaking it would be difficult for Peter to travel with her. My point was that Peter and the rest were celibate. But even so, celibacy, as I mentioned, isn’t a doctrine. It is merely a practice. Priests don’t’ HAVE to be celibate. But they do have to be obedient. A married priest would be under two conflicting obligations (to God and to wife).

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), January 23, 2003.


“So, if it isn't in Scripture and isn't Apostolic Tradition, then why was it started at all?”

Tim, it is a prayer for crying out loud. You don’t need to say the rosary to be Catholic! And you aren’t necessarily Catholic if you say the rosary. I fail to see how this is a “key” to your argument. Why was it even brought in? Should we ONLY pray the Lord’s Prayer? Anything else is “unscriptural”.

And, Tim, really quickly.

1) Baptism was instituted by Christ through the administration of it by John. In other words, John was told by Christ (because Christ was God and God spoke to John) to baptize. 2) Communion was instituted by Christ at the last supper. 3) Confession was instituted by Christ when he told everyone to confess their sins, and when he told his Aposltes, “whose sins you forgive are forgiven, whose sins you bind are bound”. 4) Confirmation was instituted by Christ on Pentecost, when the Apostles received the seal of the Holy Spirit. 5) Marriage was instituted by Christ at the creation of man, and later affirmed by Christ when he spoke on divorce.

6) Holy Orders was instituted by Christ when he gave authority to His Apostles and sent them out. Actually before that God had instituted the priesthood with Aaron.

7) The “last right” I’m not sure of. Can someone fill this in for me?

Hope that helps.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), January 23, 2003.


The sacrament of the sick is clearly described in James 5:14-15 ...

"Is anyone among you sick? Then he must call for the elders of the church and they are to pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer offered in faith will restore the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up, and if he has committed sins, they will be forgiven him."

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 23, 2003.


Thanks, Paul! I knew you would know. Does every thing I said sound about right? Just correct me if I'm out of line. Thanks again.

Please, Tim, take these things to heart.

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), January 24, 2003.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ