>> Can you provide a Biblical basis for that? <<
"Unless you eat of the flesh of the Son of Man, you shall have no life within you." (Most) Protestants don't believe in transubstantiation; hence they don't consume the flesh of the Son of Man.
>> ""For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men—the testimony given in its proper time." 1 Timothy 2:5-g <<
"Those whose sins you forgive are forgiven; those whose sins you hold bound, are held bound." This authority was delegated by the apostles to the leaders of each Christian community. Yes, it Jesus who ultimately forgives each person, but a person accepts forgiveness by reconciling himself to the body of Christ, which is the church ("We are all one body, the body of Jesus the Christ" -- St. Paul)
>> What is the Biblical basis for papal inspiration? <<
"You are Rock (Cephas) and apon this Rock (Cephas), I will build my Church, and the gates of Hell shall not withstand it. To you shall be given the keys of kingdom of Heaven*. Whatever you declare bound on Earth shall be (/has been) bound in Heaven, and whatever you declare loosed on Earth shall be (/has been) loosed in Heaven."
(*This is signatory of a regent, an office which by its very nature must be handed down in the event of the regent's death.)
"I am the good shepherd... My Sheep hear me, and know my voice... [much later] Peter, shepherd my sheep."
How does the Pope receive such inspiration? The way the apostles did collectively, at Pentecost, Pentecost and the apostles received the gift of the Holy Spirit to become overseers (bishops) of the Church.
>> You never answered the list of contradictions between the Apocrypha and the Bible at: http://www.justforcatholics.org/a109.htm <<
You demand a bit much if you expect me to respond to each and every absurd assertion at that web site. Frankly, every skeptic and anti-Christian in history has pointed out what appears to be contradiction between various books within the Protestant canon.
But, I will demonstrate the folly of justforapostates by addressing the first objection:
" Let's take some examples, starting with the book of Sirach which teaches that almsgiving makes atonement for sin. “Whoso honoureth his father maketh an atonement for his sins...Water will quench a flaming fire; and alms maketh an atonement for sin” (Sirach 3:3, 30)... Now it is the constant teaching of the Law that atonement is made by a blood sacrifice. For example Leviticus 17:11 states: “For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.”"
The book of Sirach is foreshadowing baptism, whereas immersion in WATER frees people from eternal damnation. The blood required is offered once and for all by the Messiah, whose suffering Sirach alludes to several times.
>> Can you cite Luther to defend your definition of sola scriptura (because, frankly, you are out and out wrong)? <<
In this case, you may have misunderstood what I was driving at. Sola Sciptura is used incessantly to implicitly deny the authenticity of any doctrine not explicitly stated in the bible. You, yourself, have several times demanded that my support for a given doctrine come from the bible itself. So when I said, "as used," I meant as in contrast to "as explicitly defined."
>> Where do you get that Luther preached that we should subscribe to whatever evil passions please us? <<
I KNOW I have very thoroughly addressed this issue on this thread. Absurdly thoroughly. Please read posts 146, 149, and 152, with further related information in 159, 162, 168, and 172! And, for now, I'll leave what I've said in those posts to respond to the issue of Luther's adultery, while acknowledging that I've not completely answered that one question for now.
>> You said: "Jerome strenuously denied that interpretation, considering it outrageous slander." Can you provide a source for this? <<
"Against Rufinus", Book 2, chapters 25 to 35 (end).
This quote sums it up nicely:
"But when I repeat what the Jews say against the Story of Susanna and the Hymn of the Three Children, and the fables of Bel and the Dragon, which are not contained in the Hebrew Bible, the man who makes this a charge against me proves himself to be a fool and a slanderer; for I explained not what I thought but what they commonly say against us."
Available here: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/27102.htm
>> As to your scoffing at the person who said that the Prayer of Manasses was not accepted as Canonical by the Catholic church, allow me to quote from the Douay-Rheims Bible: <<
As for the Prayer of Manasseh, on this issue I have made a grave error, assuming (with some measure of stupidity on my part, that you had refered to the Letter of Jeremiah, which often appeared in the Septuagint as a separate work, and was appended to the end of the book of Baruch. Further adding to my confusion, the Prayer of Manasseh is often believed to have been based on Baruch 1.15-3.8.
The prayer of Manasseh, I now see, is what I was referring to as "Psalm 151." It was an appendage to the Greek Odes, known to the West as the Psalms. It was understood in the ancient church not to be a part of the Psalms, but a beautiful and fitting pius addition to the Hebrew. In the Coptic church, it is inserted to its inspiration, the story of Manasseh in 2 Chronicles.
It is part of Orthodox liturgical texts, but is NOT included in the modern Greek bibles. It IS believed to be post-Christian and pseudoepigraphic.
>>the Catholic Encyclopedia <<
You must understand that the so-called "Catholic Encyclopedia" was written by journalists for the "Our Daily Sunday Visitor" in 1911. The journalists had meager educations into Catholicism, were from the predominantly Protestant mid-Western culture and the encyclopedia was not intended for apologetics. The fact that its outlook reflects the prevailing Protestant outlook should be made obvious by its use of the term "apocrypha"!
It is not authoritative. The imprimatur only signifies that the local bishop recognizes no heresy within it. So, while it is useful for a starting point on Catholic doctrine, it hardly establishes Catholicism's historical outlook.
That said, the encyclopedia is not wrong, as far as what was known in 1911. In fact, there was no known, pre-Christian canon among the Palestinian Jews at the time. But don't draw any false inferences: The Palestinian Jews at the time also didn't agree whether ANY of the books of the Prophets or books of the Scrolls (historical books) belonged in the bible!
The passage also plainly recognizes that Hellenic Jews DID include the deuterocanonicals. However, unknown to the modern world at the time, there DID exist a Palestinian canon, which was accepted by the Essene cult of Peter, Andrew, James, John the Evangelist and John the Baptist, and this canon was discovered in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
>> Josephus <<
Josephus was a Jew who explicitly rejected Christ and wrote AFTER the Council of Jamnia. He is cited by Christians because, in spite of anti-Christian intentions, he was actually a reasonably fair historian. But the fact that he rejected the deuterocanonicals is hardly surprising or relevant to the position of the Early Christian Church.
>>I am not Lutheran.<<
I discerned that a long time ago, which is why I refered to the doctrines which you appear to hold and which were invented (yes, invented) by Luther as "Lutherism" and not "Lutheranism."
There! Except for the issue of Luther's adultery, how's that for answering?
And Protestants do reconcile themselves to the body of Christ--they just do it without the Catholic church. The Roman Catholic church is not really catholic. Furthermore, if you deny that Protestants partake of the body and blood of Christ, then you deny that they are a part of Christ's body at all. "Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day." John 6:53-54
"Those whose sins you forgive are forgiven; those whose sins you hold bound, are held bound." This authority was delegated by the apostles to the leaders of each Christian community.
First of all, you make the assumption that it was delegated. Let us assume that you are right for a moment. Then the sins are unbound by the Christian leaders within the Protestant community. Why is the Catholic church needed? If you are thinking along the lines of confession, you are once again assuming that the sins must be forgiven by a human agent, but this is not so. For we have one high priest and he is in heaven.
" Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, sin boldly, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides. We, however, says Peter (2. Peter 3:13) are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth where justice will reign. "
I wondered if you were referring to this. I have heard your interpretation elsewhere and it is absolute hogwash. All Luther is saying here is that we can be forgiven for any sin (which is true), but he is not saying that we ought to sin.
The Catholic church held that both faith and works were signs of grace, and that they inherently led to each other. Luther rejected this.
Wrong. Did you read my quote from Luther earlier? If not, it was post #142. Luther did believe that good works would follow from salvation.
(Most) Protestants don't believe in transubstantiation; hence they don't consume the flesh of the Son of Man.
So the taking of the Lord's Supper does not count? Ironically, your greatest ally on this would be a Lutheran. Jesus was referring to the Lord's Supper, which is practiced by Protestants.
Your passages are frequently used to argue for papal authority and they do not even prove that.
Where in those verses do you see inspiration?
You demand a bit much if you expect me to respond to each and every absurd assertion at that web site.
Perhaps. But there are still contradictions between what the Apcrypha states and what we are told in the Bible. Sanctification is through faith and not through baptism. Baptism, like circumcision once was, is a sign of the covnenant, neither more nor less. If it were necessary for salvation, then how could the robber on the cross be saved to whom Jesus said "This day you will be with me in paradise"? It also still says that the giving of alms atones sins--a teaching agreeable to some Catholics, but quite contrary to the scriptures which state that forgiveness is in and only in the blood of Jesus.
Furthermore, I think you stretch when you try to connect those passages with baptism, but even if you grant that the passage reads: "Whoso honoureth his father maketh an atonement for his sins.", which preaches an atonement by works, not by faith.
That said, the encyclopedia is not wrong, as far as what was known in 1911. In fact, there was no known, pre-Christian canon among the Palestinian Jews at the time. But don't draw any false inferences: The Palestinian Jews at the time also didn't agree whether ANY of the books of the Prophets or books of the Scrolls (historical books) belonged in the bible!
Admitting that, how can you argue that the Apocrypha was accepted until the Council of Jamnia? And if it was, why did the Council throw them out? Your argument earlier was, essentially, that the books were regarded as canon by the Jews until Jamnia and by all Christians until Luther, which is false.
The passage also plainly recognizes that Hellenic Jews DID include the deuterocanonicals. However, unknown to the modern world at the time, there DID exist a Palestinian canon, which was accepted by the Essene cult of Peter, Andrew, James, John the Evangelist and John the Baptist, and this canon was discovered in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Yes it does (and I think I said that), but it says that it was disputed by the Palestinian Jews. So the Apocrypha was not so widely accepted as you were contending. Where do you get that Peter, Andrew, James, John, and John the Baptist were Essenes? That is speculation at best, as the Essenes are not even mentioned in the Bible. It isn't usually a good idea to back up an assertion with speculation.
Sola scriptura is used to say that if a teaching contradicts the Bible (as many Catholic ones do), then it is false. A good formulation would be: "The Bible alone is authoritative", meaning you cannot absolutely rely upon other sources. It does NOT state that everything that appears elsewhere is false. A truly absurd, but quite workable, example of where your definition of Sola Scriptura would lead is to the disbelief that the sky is blue as it is not so stated anywhere in the Bible. Most known history would be false as it did not appear in the Bible.
While you may find someone who uses it as you have defined it, that is neither its definition in theory nor for most in practice.
It is not authoritative.
I hold to Sola Scriptura. Why on earth would I think a Catholic encyclopedia authoritative?
Josephus was a Jew who explicitly rejected Christ and wrote AFTER the Council of Jamnia. He is cited by Christians because, in spite of anti-Christian intentions, he was actually a reasonably fair historian. But the fact that he rejected the deuterocanonicals is hardly surprising or relevant to the position of the Early Christian Church.
All of this I know. My point was that acceptance of the Apocrypha was never so widely accepted as you claim.
This quote sums it up nicely:...
Chapter 25 of the same book has this passage in it: "But I was encouraged above all by the authoritative publications of the Evangelists and Apostles, in which we read much taken from the Old Testament which is not found in our manuscripts. For example,...[Bible quotes]...Being ignorant of all this many follow the ravings of the Apocrypha, and prefer to the inspired books the melancholy trash which comes to us from Spain. It is not for me to explain the causes of the error."
That is not exactly a commendation of the Apocrypha. Jerome refers to its content as "ravings" and "melencholy trash", a description I very much doubt he would have used to describe Leviticus, Lamentations, etc.
There! Except for the issue of Luther's adultery, how's that for answering?
Your answers were complete, if not correct.
Though you should bring forward evidence if you will accuse a godly man of so heinous a crime.