Scriptures That Prove The Trinity

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='sacredheartandbloodofjesus' date='13 December 2009 - 04:28 PM' timestamp='1260739681' post='2019809']
[u]1John 5:7[/u]

"And there are [b]three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost[/b]. And these [b]three[/b] are [b]one[/b]."
[/quote]
What you have quoted here is generally held to be a marginal gloss which crept into the manuscript tradition via copyist error some time in the middle ages. In the sixteenth century Erasmus was pressured into including it in his collation of the Greek New Testament which became the basis of many translations for several centuries (including the King James and the Luther Bible).

The early Greek manuscripts do not include this verse and it is not quoted or expounded upon by the fathers. Here is a copy of Erasmus' second edition [url="http://anemi.lib.uoc.gr/php/pdf_pager.php?filename=/var/www/tkl-portal-neo//metadata/b/9/1/attached-metadata-106-0000100/268979.pdf&pageno=256&pagestart=1&width=595&height=420&maxpage=277&lang=en"]Greek New Testament[/url] (c. 1524) which clearly omits the comma (the controversies that led to its later inclusion are well documented). If anyone would like to peep the applicable pericope in some early Greek manuscripts here you go: [url="http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?book=55&chapter=5&lid=en&side=r&verse=7&zoomSlider=0"]Codex Sinaiticus[/url]; [url="http://images.csntm.org/Manuscripts/GA_02/GA02_086a.jpg"]Codex Alexandrinus[/url]; [url="http://images.csntm.org/Manuscripts/GA_03/GA03_106a.jpg"]Codex Vaticanus[/url].

The critical apparatus of the [i]Novum Testamentum Graece[/i] pretty much says it all imo. This [url="http://openscriptures.org/prototypes/manuscript-comparator/?passage=1John.5.7-1John.5.8&view=parallel&strongs=1"] Manuscript Comparator[/url] represents a neat idea. Looks like many of the pages are inaccessible online but here is [url="http://books.google.com/books?id=231LfndVpPsC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_v2_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=&f=false"]Sacra Pagina: 1, 2 and 3 John[/url]; some of these issues are discussed beginning around page 300. Besides this I would suggest reading a bit of [url="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=Bruce+Metzger&x=0&y=0"]Bruce Metzger[/url] if you're interested in these kind of things.

Btw, my purpose here is not to win converts to textual criticism but only to point out that using the [i]Comma Johanneum[/i] as a proof of the Trinity may get you into trouble, and I figured it would be better to hear these things from a fellow Catholic rather than a debate opponent.

[Damiano]

*["If the Holy Spirit is the sole interpreter of Scripture (which none of your quotes up there explicitly state)..."]

***The Holy Spirit is NOT the SOLE interpreter of Scripture (i.e., for there are heretics like the Magisterium who "interpret" also)--- but He is the sole INSPIRED interpreter of Scripture being God Himself the author of it. Too, "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 (i.e., the BORN-AGAIN believer---John 3:1-21) may be PERFECT throughly furnished unto all good works" [2 Timothy 3:16-17].

BOTTOM LINE: The above Scriptures are EXPLICIT that if our faith is properly placed in Christ--the Holy Spirit can and will bring forth TRUTH to us; He doesn't guide into SOME truth, but rather ALL truth: "Howbeit when He, the Spirit of Truth, is come, He will guide you into ALL truth: for He shall not speak of Himself; but whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak: and He will show you things to come. He shall glorify Me: for He shall receive of mine and shall show it unto you" [John 16:13-14].


*["... then how do you account for the widely varying (and sometimes contradictory) theological views among Protestants who subscribe to the doctrine of [i]sola scriptura[/i]?"]

***To begin with ALL Protestants do NOT hold to the doctrine of SOLA SCRIPURA...you know it and I know it---so don't get cute with me. You arrogantly pose this question with the ERRONEOUS assumption that Romanism does NOT have varying (and sometimes contradictory) theological views itself. The truth of the matter is---the BULK of your doctrine has NO SUPPORT at all in the Scriptures and is almost ENTIRELY based on your traditions that NULLIFY the of God [Matthew 15:6-9].

The most controversial issue between Protestants and Romanists is the question of AUTHORITY--what is the final seat of authority in religion. Many Protestants hold that the Bible ALONE is the FINAL rule of faith and practice, while Romanists hold that it is the Bible AND tradition as interpreted by the church. But we need only read church history to discover that when another source of authority is placed alongside Scripture as of EQUAL importance, Scripture eventually becomes relegated to the trash-heap. Whether that other source be reason, emotion, or tradition, the inevitable result is that it supplants Scripture and causes it gradually to fade away. If that other source be REASON, we get rationalism...if it be EMOTION, we get mysticism...if it be TRADITION, we get ecclesiastical dictation or clericalism. In each case the Bible, while still given lip service, is effectually superseded.


Damiano

[Arpy]

[quote name='Damiano' date='03 February 2010 - 04:57 AM' timestamp='1265201863' post='2050338']
*["... then how do you account for the widely varying (and sometimes contradictory) theological views among Protestants who subscribe to the doctrine of [i]sola scriptura[/i]?"]

***To begin with ALL Protestants do NOT hold to the doctrine of SOLA SCRIPURA...you know it and I know it---so don't get cute with me. You arrogantly pose this question with the ERRONEOUS assumption that Romanism does NOT have varying (and sometimes contradictory) theological views itself. The truth of the matter is---the BULK of your doctrine has NO SUPPORT at all in the Scriptures and is almost ENTIRELY based on your traditions that NULLIFY the of God [Matthew 15:6-9].[/quote]
Please note that nowhere did I say all Protestants stick to [i]sola scriptura[/i]. Rather than attacking my religion's perceived contradictions, please answer the question I posed to you first, without assuming that it is without merit simply because of my Romanism: If the Holy Spirit is the sole interpreter of Scripture, how do you account for the widely varying beliefs among Protestants who hold that same Scripture as their sole authority? If they are guided by the Spirit, then why don't they all hold the same views on what that Scripture means?

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Damiano' date='03 February 2010 - 04:15 AM' timestamp='1265184947' post='2050313']
*["The Magisterium of the Church is the authentic interpreter of Scripture."]



The Catholic magisterium is a collection of old unregenerate men who make pronouncements which are CONTRARY to Scripture and, as such, are FALSE. The ONLY inspired prounouncements are those contained in the Word of God (i.e., the Scriptures)...and Christians don't need unregenerate men to tell them what they mean for Christians have the Holy Ghost IN them for they are BORN of the Spirit og God (i.e., born-again) [John 3:1-21].

Damiano
[/quote]

Tell me where did the New Testament come from?
Who put it together?
Who decided the contents?
Who guarantees it the Word of God?

The Catholic Church.

If you insult the church you insult the Scriptures and you insult God. MAYBE you should rethink your opinion.

Scripture itself [ that catholic library you are fond of quoting] itself states " the church is the pillar and foundation".

Are you calling scripture a liar?

You may dislike what you think Catholic Church teachings are, and that is your perogative, but I suggest you watch your phrasing.
Differences of opinion are fine, insults are not.

[cmotherofpirl]

Also kindly cease referring to the Catholic Church as romanists, it is wrong, it is insulting.
The Catholic Church has 22 rites [ and pleased God soon to be 23], and while latin-rite catholics may comprise the largest, it is not the only one.

[Damiano]

*["...If the Holy Spirit is the sole interpreter of Scripture, how do you account for the widely varying beliefs among Protestants who hold that same Scripture as their sole authority? If they are guided by the Spirit, then why don't they all hold the same views on what that Scripture means?"]

***The argument that you are posing is a self-refuting argument that somehow, Roman Catholics are UNIFIED in belief. They are NOT. Roman Catholicism holds to SOLA ECCLESIA. This IS their INFALLIBLE source NOT the INSPIRED Scriptures. It does NOT provide UNITY. One can find SCORES of the early church fathers who DISAGREED with each other. For instance, it is in the mid-second century in the writings of Tertullian that we encounter the first clear articulation of the concept of TRADITION. Prior to this, we find little use of the word by the earliest fathers known as the Apostolic Fathers, and the apologists such as Justin Martyr, Theophilus of Antioch and Athenagoras. Rather, we find a constant appeal to the Old and New Testaments as AUTHORATATIVE sources of doctrine. These fathers held a very high view of the AUTHORITY of the Scriptures to be inspired by God...Clement of Rome and Polycarp quoted the writings of Paul calling them them the "INSPIRED ORACLES of God"...Justin Martyr likewise affirmed the inspiration of the Old Testament prophets by the Holy Spirit.

There is NO appeal in these writings to the concept of TRADITION as that embraced by the Catholic church today. They are full of direct quotations from the Old Testament and paraphrases or direct allusions to the New. The writings of the Apostolic Fathers LITERALLY breathe the New Testament. With the exception of 3 John and Jude, every book of the New Testament is either cited or alluded to in these early writings. There is NO APPEAL TO AN ORAL TRADITION. Irenaeus the defender of the faith against the Gnostic heresy leaves his readers in no doubt as to his view of Scripture. He referred to them as being fully AUTHORATATIVE for PROOF, for DOCTRINAL teaching of the Church. He states: "Since, therefore, the tradition from the apostles does thus exist in the church, and is permanent among us, let us revert to the SCRIPTURAL proof furnished by those apostles who did also write the Gospel, in which they recorded the doctrine regarding God, pointing out that our Lord Jesus Christ is the truth, and that no lie is in Him."

Irenaeus criticism of the Gnostic system was the lack of PROOF for their teaching: "Moreover, they possess NO PROOF of their system, which has not but recently been invented by them...Such, then, is their system, which neither the peophets announced, nor the Lord taught, nor the apostles delivered, but of which they BOAST that beyond all others they have a perfect knowledge. They gather their views from OTHER SOURCES THAN THE SCRIPTURES..."

It is clear that what Irenaeus meant by PROOF was DOCUMENTATION from SCRIPTURE. This lack of it proved to him that Gnostic teaching was NOT apostolic. In fact, Irenaeus goes on to say that if a DOCTRINE cannot be PROVEN FROM SCRIPTURE it is purely SPECULATIVE and CANNOT BE KNOWN. He made it clear that revelation comes ONLY through SCRIPTURE...so if Scripture is silent on a subject one CANNOT PRETEND to KNOW what it does not reveal. He rejected the legitimacy of SPECULATION on any matter NOT REVEALED IN SCRIPTURE. The importance of this principle is apparent when applied to the subject of tradition. Irenaeus believed that true apostolic tradition CANNOT be purely ORAL in nature...it must be VERIFIED from the writings of the apostles. This is the point of contention between Irenaeus and his Gnostic opponents. The Gnostics claimed to possess an oral tradition from the apostles which was SUPPLEMENTAL to Scripture and IMMUNE to the Scriptural PROOFS demanded by Irenaeus. According to Irenaeus, in order for tradition to be demonstrated as truly apostolic it must be DOCUMENTED BY SCRIPTURE!!!

BOTTOM LINE: Therefore, it is simply ridiculous for Roman Catholics to hold Protestants to a standard they themselves can't live up to. That some misinterpret or twist the Bible is not the fault of the Bible, hence is not a proof against Sola Scriptura. In the same way, that I may possibly configure my car's wiring system incorrectly is not the fault of the owner's manual that comes with it. The misuse of a SUFFICIENT source does not negate the CLARITY of that SUFFICIENT source.

Rome has only explicitly defined a handful of passages, and allows their theologians to SPECULATE and use their PRIVATE judgment on the MAJORITY of Scripture. What this means to the Catholic layman, is that in reality, they can't really KNOW what the Scriptures mean in most cases. Rome has claimed interpretive rights, but rarely use the right. Catholics can claim UNITY, but without an infallible interpretation of almost the ENTIRETY of the Bible, their ranting against alleged Protestant DISUNITY is more like clanging cymbals or a facade rather than an actual argument..

Modern Catholicism is the Gnosticism of Old...and Irenaeus is not here to combat it.

Damiano

[Nihil Obstat]

Ignatius and Clement didn't exactly have a large body of patristic Tradition to draw upon. Irenaeus had... what, a single generation to look back to? Tertullian had only slightly more than they did. (Interestingly, he went nuts with his Montanism)

The idea of Tradition presupposes something that came before. The Apostolic Fathers had no Christianity that came before, so obviously they drew from the Traditions of Sacred Scripture. As they authentically interpreted Sacred Scripture we can see a slow but steady growth of a legitimate (exclusively) Christian Tradition which we now have the luxury of looking upon as every bit as authoritative as the sources from which it arose.

So yea, nice logic fail. Am I allowed to accuse Protestantism of failing to adequately deal with the Gnostic heresies of the first millenium? May I accuse Martin Luther of having a poorly developed approach towards fetal stem cell research and in vitro fertilization?

Edited February 4, 2010 by Nihil Obstat

[Veridicus]

[img]http://lpmuds.net/teal_deer.jpg[/img]

[Arpy]

HOW do you explain 2 Thessalonians 2:15? And WHERE does the idea of sola scriptura come from, if not from OUTSIDE the Bible? NOWHERE does the Bible claim itself as the sole authority.

[Damiano]

*["Tell me where did the New Testament come from? Who put it together? Who decided the contents? Who guarantees it the Word of God?"]

***I'll let the Bible speak for itself. Does it claim to be God's Word? Yes! In fact, over 2,000 times in the OT alone it asserts that God spoke what is written within its pages...from the beginning [Genesis 1:3] to the end [Malachi 4:3]. and continuously throughout, this is what Scripture claims.

The phrase "the Word of God" occurs over 40 times in the NT. It is equated with the OT [Mark 7:13]...it is what Jesus preached [Luke 5:1]...it was the message the apostles taught [Acts 4:31;6:2]...it was the Word the Samaritans received [Acts 8:14] as given by the apostles [Acts 8:25]...it was the message the Gentiles received as preached by Peter [Acts 11:1]...it was the word Paul preached on his first missionary journey [Acts 13:5,7,44,48,49;15:35,36]...it was the message Paul preached on his second missionary journey [Acts 16:32;17:13;18:11]...it was the message Paul preached on his third missionary journey [Acts 19:10]. It was the focus of Luke in the Book of Acts in that it spread rapidly and widely [Acts 6:7;12:24;19:20]. Paul was careful to tell the Corinthians that he spoke the Word as it was GIVEN FROM God, that it had not been adulterated, and that it was a manifestation of truth [2 Corinthians 2:17;4:2]. Paul acknowledged that it was the SOURCE of his preaching [Colossians 1:25;1 Thessalonians 2:13].

Psalms 19 and 119, plus Proverbs 30:5-6, make powerful statements about God's Word which set it apart from ANY other religious instruction ever known in the history of mankind. These passages make the case for the Bible being called "sacred" [2 Timothy 3:15] and "holy" [Romans 1:2].

The Bible claims ULTIMATE SPIRITUAL AUTHORITY in DOCTRINE, REPROOF, CORRECTION, and INSTRUCTION IN RIGHTEOUSNESS because it represents the INSPIRED Word of Almighty God [2 Timothy 3:16,17]. Scripture asserts its SPIRITUAL SUFFICIENCY, so much so that it claims EXCLUSIVITY for its teaching [Isaiah 55:11;2 Peter 1:3,4].

God's Word declares that it is INERRANT [Psalm 12:6;119:140;Proverbs 30:5a;John 10:35] and INFALLIBLE [2 Timothy 3:16,17]. In other words, it is true and therefore TRUSTWORTHY. All of these qualities are dependent on the fact that Scripture is God-given [2 Timothy 3:16;2 Peter 1:20,21], which guarantees its quality at the SOURCE and at its ORIGINAL writing.

In Scripture, the person of God and the Word of God are everywhere interrelated...so much so that whatsoever is true about the character of God is true about the NATURE of God's Word. God is TRUE, IMPECCABLE, and RELIABLE; therefore, so is His Word. What a person thinks about God's Word, in reality, reflects what a person THINKS ABOUT GOD.


*["The Catholic Church."]

***Pure unadulterated NONSENSE!


*["...If you insult the church you insult the Scriptures and you insult God. MAYBE you should rethink your opinion."]

***That is a LIE right out of the pit of Hell. Too, you will not dictate to me what I should rethink. My opinions are based on the dictates of Scripture which you and your church HATE and DENY. The Scriptures focuses the light of truth on the heresies promulgated by your church throughout the ages--which have consigned untold millions to everlasting perdition (some of whom are my family members) and I hate the "whore" for that.


*["Scripture itself [ that catholic library you are fond of quoting] itself states " the church is the pillar and foundation". Are you calling scripture a liar?"]

***I refuted that argument in a previous post at length. No, I am not calling Scripture a Liar...I am calling YOU and your APOSTATE Church LIARS!


*["You may dislike what you think Catholic Church teachings are, and that is your perogative, but I suggest you watch your phrasing. Differences of opinion are fine, insults are not."]

***Your Church and its doctrines are CONTRARY to what the Scriptures teach...and that is why you DENY them as the SOLE Authority. Your doctrines CANNOT stand the SCRUTINY of the Scriptures and are, as such, FALSE! I cannot and will NOT violate God's Word by remaining silent while you and your Church LIE about the SUFFICIENCY of His Word and attack it to perpetuate your church's lies which have consigned untold millions to Hell for almost two thousand years. Of course, I know that I will pay for these remarks by being BANNED...but I recant NOT!

Damiano

[Nihil Obstat]

Hehe, he ignored me.


You should stop this egregious abuse of CAPS LOCK.
It makes for a TEDIOUS read. I'm really getting quite SICK of it.

[HisChildForever]

He never said where the New Testament (or the entire Bible) comes from. I suppose it just fell out of the sky and rearranged itself into the King James.

[MIKolbe]

yes..

leather bound and Jesus' words in [color="#FF0000"]red[/color].

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Damiano' date='04 February 2010 - 09:18 AM' timestamp='1265289524' post='2051123']
*["Tell me where did the New Testament come from? Who put it together? Who decided the contents? Who guarantees it the Word of God?"]

***I'll let the Bible speak for itself. Does it claim to be God's Word? Yes! In fact, over 2,000 times in the OT alone it asserts that God spoke what is written within its pages...from the beginning [Genesis 1:3] to the end [Malachi 4:3]. and continuously throughout, this is what Scripture claims.

The phrase "the Word of God" occurs over 40 times in the NT. It is equated with the OT [Mark 7:13]...it is what Jesus preached [Luke 5:1]...it was the message the apostles taught [Acts 4:31;6:2]...it was the Word the Samaritans received [Acts 8:14] as given by the apostles [Acts 8:25]...it was the message the Gentiles received as preached by Peter [Acts 11:1]...it was the word Paul preached on his first missionary journey [Acts 13:5,7,44,48,49;15:35,36]...it was the message Paul preached on his second missionary journey [Acts 16:32;17:13;18:11]...it was the message Paul preached on his third missionary journey [Acts 19:10]. It was the focus of Luke in the Book of Acts in that it spread rapidly and widely [Acts 6:7;12:24;19:20]. Paul was careful to tell the Corinthians that he spoke the Word as it was GIVEN FROM God, that it had not been adulterated, and that it was a manifestation of truth [2 Corinthians 2:17;4:2]. Paul acknowledged that it was the SOURCE of his preaching [Colossians 1:25;1 Thessalonians 2:13].

Psalms 19 and 119, plus Proverbs 30:5-6, make powerful statements about God's Word which set it apart from ANY other religious instruction ever known in the history of mankind. These passages make the case for the Bible being called "sacred" [2 Timothy 3:15] and "holy" [Romans 1:2].

The Bible claims ULTIMATE SPIRITUAL AUTHORITY in DOCTRINE, REPROOF, CORRECTION, and INSTRUCTION IN RIGHTEOUSNESS because it represents the INSPIRED Word of Almighty God [2 Timothy 3:16,17]. Scripture asserts its SPIRITUAL SUFFICIENCY, so much so that it claims EXCLUSIVITY for its teaching [Isaiah 55:11;2 Peter 1:3,4].

God's Word declares that it is INERRANT [Psalm 12:6;119:140;Proverbs 30:5a;John 10:35] and INFALLIBLE [2 Timothy 3:16,17]. In other words, it is true and therefore TRUSTWORTHY. All of these qualities are dependent on the fact that Scripture is God-given [2 Timothy 3:16;2 Peter 1:20,21], which guarantees its quality at the SOURCE and at its ORIGINAL writing.

In Scripture, the person of God and the Word of God are everywhere interrelated...so much so that whatsoever is true about the character of God is true about the NATURE of God's Word. God is TRUE, IMPECCABLE, and RELIABLE; therefore, so is His Word. What a person thinks about God's Word, in reality, reflects what a person THINKS ABOUT GOD.


*["The Catholic Church."]

***Pure unadulterated NONSENSE!


*["...If you insult the church you insult the Scriptures and you insult God. MAYBE you should rethink your opinion."]

***That is a LIE right out of the pit of Hell. Too, you will not dictate to me what I should rethink. My opinions are based on the dictates of Scripture which you and your church HATE and DENY. The Scriptures focuses the light of truth on the heresies promulgated by your church throughout the ages--which have consigned untold millions to everlasting perdition (some of whom are my family members) and I hate the "whore" for that.


*["Scripture itself [ that catholic library you are fond of quoting] itself states " the church is the pillar and foundation". Are you calling scripture a liar?"]

***I refuted that argument in a previous post at length. No, I am not calling Scripture a Liar...I am calling YOU and your APOSTATE Church LIARS!


*["You may dislike what you think Catholic Church teachings are, and that is your perogative, but I suggest you watch your phrasing. Differences of opinion are fine, insults are not."]

***Your Church and its doctrines are CONTRARY to what the Scriptures teach...and that is why you DENY them as the SOLE Authority. Your doctrines CANNOT stand the SCRUTINY of the Scriptures and are, as such, FALSE! I cannot and will NOT violate God's Word by remaining silent while you and your Church LIE about the SUFFICIENCY of His Word and attack it to perpetuate your church's lies which have consigned untold millions to Hell for almost two thousand years. Of course, I know that I will pay for these remarks by being BANNED...but I recant NOT!

Damiano
[/quote]
Your wish to appear a martyr won't be supplied by us. We have heard all the rantings against the Church before. Many people here are former baptists, fundies, generics etc.

Again who put the New testament together? Who guarentees its authority?
The Catholic Church.

If you disrespect the Church, you Disrescpect the Scriptures you disrespect God.
SCRIPTURE [ I can play cap lock as well ] says the Church is the pillar and foundation.
"But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth."
- 1 Timothy 3,15

[Arpy]

[quote name='Damiano' date='04 February 2010 - 05:18 AM' timestamp='1265289524' post='2051123']
The Bible claims ULTIMATE SPIRITUAL AUTHORITY in DOCTRINE, REPROOF, CORRECTION, and INSTRUCTION IN RIGHTEOUSNESS because it represents the INSPIRED Word of Almighty God [2 Timothy 3:16,17]. Scripture asserts its SPIRITUAL SUFFICIENCY, so much so that it claims EXCLUSIVITY for its teaching [Isaiah 55:11;2 Peter 1:3,4].
[/quote]
Isaiah 55:11 reads, in my undoubtedly corrupt and uninspired papist Bible, "So shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth, it shall not return to me void, but shall do my will, achieving the end for which I sent it." I see nothing that says "It is all that is needed to achieve my ends." I assume the numbering is rather different in our Bibles, because I see nothing about the word of God in 1 Peter 3 or 4. An agency to interpret Scripture is needed, otherwise we end up with all kinds of heresy. If someone were to say that Isaiah 1:14 proves that God hates the Twilight "Saga" and the Holy Spirit has made it known to him, you can only trump him with your own interpretation of that verse, and how is yours any better? The same Spirit is guiding your interpretations, right?
[quote name='Damiano' date='04 February 2010 - 05:18 AM' timestamp='1265289524' post='2051123']
God's Word declares that it is INERRANT [Psalm 12:6;119:140;Proverbs 30:5a;John 10:35] and INFALLIBLE [2 Timothy 3:16,17]. In other words, it is true and therefore TRUSTWORTHY. All of these qualities are dependent on the fact that Scripture is God-given [2 Timothy 3:16;2 Peter 1:20,21], which guarantees its quality at the SOURCE and at its ORIGINAL writing.
[/quote]
Scripture is God-given, yes. So is the church that Christ founded. Christ was God and He built his Church upon Peter, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. [Matt: 16:18] As a side note, 2 Tim. 3:16,17 says nothing about scripture being infallible. I do not think that word means what you think it means.
[quote name='Damiano' date='04 February 2010 - 05:18 AM' timestamp='1265289524' post='2051123']
***That is a LIE right out of the pit of Hell. Too, you will not dictate to me what I should rethink. My opinions are based on the dictates of Scripture which you and your church HATE and DENY. The Scriptures focuses the light of truth on the heresies promulgated by your church throughout the ages--which have consigned untold millions to everlasting perdition (some of whom are my family members) and I hate the "whore" for that.
[/quote]
I thought Christians are supposed to love their enemies...You'll have a much better chance of converting people (if that's what you're really out to do) with reasoned debate than you will with CAPS LOCK and THREATS OF ETERNAL DAMNATION. Love the person, loathe their ideas if you must.
[quote name='Damiano' date='04 February 2010 - 05:18 AM' timestamp='1265289524' post='2051123']
*["Scripture itself [ that catholic library you are fond of quoting] itself states " the church is the pillar and foundation". Are you calling scripture a liar?"]

***I refuted that argument in a previous post at length. No, I am not calling Scripture a Liar...I am calling YOU and your APOSTATE Church LIARS!
[/quote]
Our apostate Church decided which books belong in the Scriptural canon. This is historical fact, and everything was pretty peachy until Martin Luther came along with his own brand of heresy.
[quote name='Damiano' date='04 February 2010 - 05:18 AM' timestamp='1265289524' post='2051123']
***Your Church and its doctrines are CONTRARY to what the Scriptures teach...and that is why you DENY them as the SOLE Authority. Your doctrines CANNOT stand the SCRUTINY of the Scriptures and are, as such, FALSE!
[/quote]
Actually, there's nothing in Catholic doctrine that directly contradicts the Scriptures. There are some things that are only supported indirectly, but ultimately it is only your incompletely formed interpretations of Scripture that go against what the Church teaches.

[Damiano]

*["Again who put the New testament together? Who guarentees its authority? The Catholic Church."]

***Compared to the NT, there was very little controversy over the canon of the OT. Hebrew believers recognized God's messengers and accepted their writings as inspired of God. While there was some debate in regards to the OT canon, by 250 A.D. there was nearly universal agreement on the canon of Hebrew Scripture. The only issue that remained was the Apocrypha, with some debate and discussion continuing today. The vast majority of Hebrew scholars considered the Apocrypha to be good historical and religious documents, but NOT on the same level as the Hebrew Scriptures.

For the NT, the process of the recognition and collection began in the first centuries of the Christian church. Very early on, some of the NT books were being recognized. Paul considered Luke's writings to be as authoratative as the OT [1 Timothy 5:18]; see also [Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7]. Peter recognized Paul's writings as Scripture [2 Peter 3:15-16]. Some of the books of the NT were being circulated among the churches [Colossians 4:16;1 Thessalonians 5:27]. Clement of Rome mentioned at least eight NT books (95 A.D.)..Ignatius of Antioch acknowledged about seven books (115 A.D.)...Polycarp, a disciple of John the apostle, acknowledged 15 books (108 A.D.). Later, Irenaeus mentioned 21 books (185 A.D.)...Hippolytus recognized 22 books (170-235 A.D.). The NT books receiving the most controversy were Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John.

The first "canon" was the Muratorian Canon, which was compiled in 170 A.D. The Muratorian Canon included all of the NT books except Hebrews, James, and 3 John. In 363 A.D., the Council of Laodicea stated that only the OT (along with the Apocrypha) and the 27 books of the NT were to be read in the churches. The Council of Hippo (393 A.D.) and the Council of Carthage (397 A.D.) also affirmed the same 27 books as authoratative.

The councils followed something similar to the following principles to determine whether a NT book was truly inspired by the Holy Spirit: (1)Was the author an apostle or have a close connection with an apostle? (2)Is the book being accepted by the body of Christ at large? (3)Did the book contain consistency of doctrine and orthodox teaching? (4)Did the book bear evidence of high moral and spiritual values that would reflect a work of the Holy Spirit? Again, it is crucial to remember that the church did NOT determine the canon. No early church council decided on the canon...it was GOD, and GOD ALONE, who determined which books belonged in the Bible. It was simply a matter of God's imparting to His followers what He had already decided. The human process of collecting the books of the Bible was FLAWED, but God, in His sovereignty, and despite our ignorance and stubbornness, brought the early church to the recognition of the books He had inspired.

BOTTOM LINE: As much as your church likes to boast that it put the Bible together, the fact remains that the NT existed as a result of GOD. The Roman Catholic church only ACKNOWLEDGED what ALREADY EXISTED, and that long BEFORE its council convened.

In addition, the Bible is NOT the product of the Church, and especially NOT the Catholic church. The Bible existed over 500 years BEFORE the first man took on the title of "universal bishop."
The Bible solidly states that it is a product of God, NOT of man nor of the church. It is the Bible which defines the church and NOT the other way around: "But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is NOT according to MAN. For I neither received it FROM MAN, nor was I taught it, but it CAME through the REVELATION of Jesus Christ" [Galatians 1:11-12].

The problem with the Roman Catholic Church is that it does NOT support the TRUTH (the Word Of God, the Bible). It supports its traditions. Where those traditions conflict with the Bible, it claims the right to MODIFY the Bible's teaching (and thus is claiming the right to modify the truth).


*["...SCRIPTURE says the Church is the pillar and foundation...1 Timothy 3,15..."]

***Is the church the pillar and ground of the truth? You say yes, and point to [1 Timothy 3:15] as proof. A cursory reading of this verse would seem to support your contention that the church is the pillar and ground of the truth. You allege that the church upholds the truth, which means that the church existed BEFORE the truth. Your charge that the church gave the Bible to the world could not be questioned IF this position were true. However, we as members of the Lord's church DENY this claim by the Catholic church.

The fact is that the truth UPHOLDS the church, NOT vice versa. The foundation [1 Corinthians 3:11] upon which the church is founded is the truth that Jesus Christ is the Son of the Living God [Matthew 16:18]. As members of the Lord's church, we turn to the truth of God's Word as our guide in faith and practice [Colossians 3:17]. This being the case, what is the pillar and ground of the truth? For the answer to this question we need only to examine [1 Timothy 3:15,16]. These two verses taken together read, "But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. And without controversy great is the mystery of Godliness: God was MANIFESTED in the flesh, JUSTIFIED in the Spirit, SEEN of angels, PREACHED unto the Gentiles, BELIEVED on in the world, RECEIVED up into glory." Paul here was NOT writing that the church WAS the pillar and ground of the truth. RATHER, he WAS writing THAT the pillar and ground of the truth IS that Jesus was MANIFEST in the FLESH!!!

This being said, let us read these verses DIFFERENTLY...to wit: "But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God. The pillar and ground of the truth (and without controversy great) is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory" [1 Timothy 3:15,16].

Now, the church is to support the truth by following it...defending it...and teaching it to others. However, this is a far cry from saying that the church is the very foundation upon which the truth rests.

The pillar and ground of the truth is the fact that Jesus came in the flesh...that He was the Incarnate Son of the Living God who walked upon the earth and died for our sins. THIS fact is that which upholds the ENTIRETY of the truth of God's Word. It is the very FOUNDATION upon which the church is built, and upon which she continues to stand.

Damiano

[Arpy]

Thank you for toning down the vitriol. I look forward to your rebuttal of my points.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Damiano' date='04 February 2010 - 08:20 PM' timestamp='1265332809' post='2051378']
The problem with the Roman Catholic Church is that it does NOT support the TRUTH (the Word Of God, the Bible). It supports its traditions. Where those traditions conflict with the Bible, it claims the right to MODIFY the Bible's teaching (and thus is claiming the right to modify the truth).
[/quote]

Examples please.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Damiano' date='04 February 2010 - 09:20 PM' timestamp='1265332809' post='2051378']
*["Again who put the New testament together? Who guarentees its authority? The Catholic Church."]


For the NT, the process of the recognition and collection began in the first centuries of the [Christian] [color="#FF0000"]Catholic[/color] church. Very early on, some of the NT books were being recognized. Paul considered Luke's writings to be as authoratative as the OT [1 Timothy 5:18]; see also [Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7]. Peter recognized Paul's writings as Scripture [2 Peter 3:15-16]. Some of the books of the NT were being circulated among the churches [Colossians 4:16;1 Thessalonians 5:27]. Clement of Rome mentioned at least eight NT books
[color="#8B0000"]He happened to be Pope Clement of the Catholic Church[/color].(95 A.D.)..Ignatius of Antioch acknowledged about seven books [color="#FF0000"]{He is a Saint of the Catholic Church][/color](115 A.D.)...Polycarp,[[color="#FF0000"]another Catholic Saint[/color]] a disciple of John the apostle, acknowledged 15 books (108 A.D.). Later, [[color="#FF0000"]Saint[/color]]Irenaeus mentioned 21 books (185 A.D.)...Hippolytus recognized 22 books (170-235 A.D.). The NT books receiving the most controversy were Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John.

The first "canon" was the Muratorian Canon, which was compiled in 170 A.D. The Muratorian Canon included all of the NT books except Hebrews, James, and 3 John. In 363 A.D., the [[color="#FF0000"]again this is Catholic[/color]]Council of Laodicea stated that only the OT (along with the Apocrypha) and the 27 books of the NT were to be read in the churches. The Council of Hippo [C[color="#FF0000"]Catholic[/color]](393 A.D.) and the Council of Carthage [[color="#FF0000"]Catholic[/color]](397 A.D.) also affirmed the same 27 books as authoratative.

The councils followed something similar to the following principles to determine whether a NT book was truly inspired by the Holy Spirit: (1)Was the author an apostle or have a close connection with an apostle? (2)Is the book being accepted by the body of Christ at large? (3)Did the book contain consistency of doctrine and orthodox teaching? (4)Did the book bear evidence of high moral and spiritual values that would reflect a work of the Holy Spirit? Again, it is crucial to remember that the church did NOT determine the canon. No early church council decided on the canon...it was GOD, and GOD ALONE, who determined which books belonged in the Bible. It was simply a matter of God's imparting to His followers what He had already decided. The human process of collecting the books of the Bible was FLAWED, but God, in His sovereignty, and despite our ignorance and stubbornness, brought the early church to the recognition of the books He had inspired.

BOTTOM
In addition, the Bible is NOT the product of the Church, and especially NOT the Catholic church. The Bible existed over 500 years BEFORE the first man took on the title of "universal bishop."
[/quote]
I corrected and added the details you left out in red.
St Peter was the first universal bishop and You yourself quoted Pope ST Clement who was writing as the bishop of Rome who had sovereignty of all the other Churches.

[CatherineM]

I want to interject with a quote. "We concede—as we must—that so much of what the Catholic Church says is true: that the Papacy has God’s word and the office of the Apostles, and that we have received Holy Scriptures, baptism, the sacrament, and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not for them?" That’s by Martin Luther. Even he acknowledged that the Catholic Church is the custodian of Sacred Scripture.